theloniusfleabag

Well, here in Calgary some areas did get flooded, the majority were along the Elbow River Valley. The top of the dam at the Glenmore Reservoir was breached by the rising water for the first time in history, (since the 30's) and they could not release enough water from the flood gates to cope with the incoming volume. The gates evidently can release 150 cubic metres/second, but the water from the Elbow coming into the res. was about 200 cu. m/sec. The worst hit seems to be High River, (funny, that) with extensive flooding after the river breached the banks. Lots of debris collecting under some of the low bridges there. Sounds like the worst is over, as the rain has let up to 'intermittent'. Soon, though, Sask is going to be hit with big surges in volume, lots od debris and worse yet, some small towns had their sewage treatment plants over-run, and raw sewage was released into the system. Free peanuts and corn downstream, I hear.

Dear Hugo, That proves nothing, for faith is not proof. Correct, I was quoting the Dalai Lama, on what I believe his take on the situation was. The 'Four Noble Truths' of Buddhism are supposedly: that existence is sorrowful and impermanent; that the roots of existence are desire and ignorance, which lead to rebirth;, that nirvana, or transcendence, can be attained by overcoming these causes, and that the way to accomplish this goal is through the eightfold path of right views, right speech, yadda, yadda, yadda. My views are similar, though not the same. Overcoming the impermanence is the real 'purpose' to life, and I don't believe in all the 'Karma' rubbish. As to the rest of those who don't pursue the goal, they can be left behind, without 'transgressing their rights'.

Dear Hugo, Not really, I heard the Dalai Lama speak on TV a while back espousing the idea that every thing on the planet is 'sentient' (including rocks, trees, etc), and therefore deserving of existence.

Dear I miss Trudeau, No, as I understand it the 'caveat' must be voluntary and from within. It would be 'wrong', according to the anarchist, to actually 'enforce' it on another.

IMR, Utter BS. There was no 'faulty intelligence, there was fabricated evidence. The US and UK were told so before the invasion, and most of the world thought Bush a liar then and now. Further, UNMOVIC and IAEA were on hand, saying that there was no 'proof' when the US and UK said 'Look out! Get out of the way! We don't want proof! Here we come with big guns and no intelligence!"

Dear Hugo, Sure there is, for it is 'to be', or, more specifically, to continue 'being'. All things pursue this goal, with or without an awareness of it. Evolution is proof that all things try, and many succeed, at adapting to environment, with the goal of 'continued being' in mind. Because I believe we must choose otherwise. I have a slightly different definition of 'Anarchy' than you, for to me it is 'every man for himself and no laws (at least no enforcement) of constraint save what you impose on yourself'. I am not sure there is a definition for this, but perhaps it would be 'chaos'. Most people think this, but I say it is merely a reflection of most of mankind's limited imagination. Further, it lacks imagination because it only deals with 'the here and now', with no regard to the future of being, or beings.

Dear Donvonbra, If that was the case he would have 'crossed the floor' and been immediately welcomed, with assumably sloghtly better chances of a cabinet post than he has now. Not exactly. Kilgour and Kindy were booted from the PC party for 'voting in accordance with the will of their constituents' against the GST. If O'Brien leaves (for taking a personal stance on the issue) before getting booted, both sides 'save face'.

Dear Hugo, Yes, this is what I am doing, and also out of 'rights theory', which then nullifies the theory of 'rights'. Moral relativism is merely looking at an event with a 'dispassionate eye'. The reason I referred to Nietzsche on this one is his writings in Ecce Homo, (which was his last one, just before he went cuckoo (or it was discovered that he was cuckoo all along) whereby a human can look at things from above (or outside), and that all moral judgement is a choice. Just like Albert Camus in his book "The Outsider", we are all just voyeurs capable of taking sides, or not. Good and evil are 'religious' moral compass points, while 'good and bad' have to do with whether or not those choices lead one toward or away from one's end goal, and by what degree they shall 'stray from the path'. The biggest question mankind faces, is 'What should be our end goal?' As I have previously stated, I hope mankind chooses more than 'anarchy'. I believe the end goal to be much simpler, for it is or has to do with, the meaning of life. And the meaning of life is, to be. Evolution, then, is merely 'to be, more efficiently'.

Dear Black Dog, I echo August1991's sentiment. August1991, when the party 'cracks the whip' on someone, the vote is hardly 'free'. Perhaps O'Brien realizes some of what you consider 'flaws inherent in the system' and didn't want to play 'party politics' anymore.

Dear August1991, You are not wrong. I did a bit of reading on the weekend, and it appears that the 'libertarian' stance indeed boils down to 'property rights' (at it's base, of one's own person) while it appears The Terrible Sweal and I have been arguing from the stance of 'moral relativism'. This is only partly true. If one 'owned' enough property and resources, (including slaves) one might, in fact, have no need for trade.Defining 'property rights' is an issue of equality and fairness, to be sure, but these are man-made things. As is law. That is why I have argued against the existence of 'natural law', for while I don't dispute mankind's overall 'superiority (taken on the average), I disagree that such superiority creates 'laws' inherently. Not exactly, Sweal, though the 'trap' is of Hugo's design. He is the one applying the 'moralism' to the argument, and while we have made no such judgement, we have argued that 'amoralism' can, and does rule by force.

Dear Hugo, You seem to keep on referring to 'crime' from the point of view of 'what did it mean?', rather than 'what happened'? Crime is a lawful thing, and though it also sometimes encompasses 'rights', they are different animals. They are also often very similar, though, for they are both man-made and therefore arbitrary. This is why I, and I dont doubt also Sweal, have been reluctant to discuss exact scenarios such as the Holocaust. Certain people would say "See, you are sdaying that you are happy those Jews are dead, because you approved of what happened, because you say that there is no 'inherent right to live' which includes, solely, the human race above all things. Again, no, according to the euthanizer. My opinion is outside the equation of 'what happened'. I think I have made my stance quite clear, on several occasions. Basically, the Nazis took away any 'rights' they had previously bestowed on the Jews, had, and in a piecemeal fasion I might add, up to and including what the Jews collectively thought was the 'right' to live. Then another group (the allies) came in and said "We will use our overwhelming force to, in our minds, re-bestow upon you the right to live" It only mattered at the end of the day "who won'. You seem to retreat from the definiton of a 'right' to a stance of 'what is right?' Should 'good' people hog 'what is right' to themselves, and not share with anyone? Replace the word 'shall' with 'can' and you have Nietzsche's 'will to power'. Most everything takes place above this, for everything else is choice. For the individual, a 'right' is nothing more than a wish. If you wield sufficient power, you can make either one 'come to life'. As an old friend of mine used to say, "You can wish in one hand and shit in the other, but which hand do you think will get filled up first?"

Dear willy, Well said. I am in total agreement. Some 'extremists' claim that this forum is dominated by this or that wing, or view, but in my opinion it is a fairly well balanced cross-section of views. I, also, have run across ideas from others that hve really made me think.

Dear Hugo, It sure does, for only the 'murderer' could have bestowed the right, so he/she annulled it within themselves before the act (if it was ever there). Besides, if it existed anywhere else, (as within the murdered) how could 'it' live on without the person? Answer: It cannot. The notion of that right ceases to exist when that person ceases producing that thought (dies). Then certainly, and with the hindsight of the hypothetical, we can say where is that it could still and only could exist. In others. What if I asked you which one matters most? Murder and suicide are by definition different from each other anyway, (and euthanasia is still considered murder unless state law allows for it) for suicide is the intentional taking of one's own life, while murder is the intentional taking of any life apart from your own. 'Rev.' Jim Jones was not Hitler, though they both caused multiple deaths. Very few of 'Rev.' Jones' 'victims' were murdered by him.By definition (at least according to the several dictionaries I have) murder is 'the unlawful' taking of life, and no mention of 'rights violation' is present. That is your take. It is in the eye of the beholder and the 'bestower'. The statement is correct, from the point of view of the Nazis. I believe Hitler must have read Nietzsche, though he never mentions it in Mein Kampf. Perhaps, as an egomaniac, he felt 'ubermensch' (or the Aryan Superman) was his idea. In his book "Inside The Third Reich", by Albert Speer, Speer himself wanted to limit destruction and 'the scorched earth' policy ordered by Hitler near the end of the war to save hope and materiel for future Germans. Hitler countered this by saying "If Germany loses the war, then the German people have 'failed the test', and therefore do not deserve to live anyway". Again, this depends on a goal. I am not in disagreement with the statement, just the 'purpose'. (We're getting back to what I haven't written yet, lol)

Dear Greg, Actually, I am a bit facetious when it comes to bashing Lethbridge. It is actually a pretty good city. I went to Jr. and Sr. High school there, and have a great many memories from there. 'Cruising' muscle cars, (Lethbridge is one of the few great Canadian 'car' towns, Saskatoon is similar) riding my bike out to Park Lake, fishing in the Oldman and Keho Lake, (I even caught a nice rainbow trout while ice fishing in Nicholas Sheridan Pond!) golfing at the Par 3 in the coulees, Lethbridge had a lot of things to offer. It had 'city ameneties' and yet a small town feel.

Dear BBM, What does this tell you about where their values are? It is like the Mob turning on a snitch. Sure, loyalty is an admirable value, but it isn't so great for the rest of us when you work for criminals. BTW, Good to see you back.

Dear Hugo, Certainly. I shall freely admit that the 'median intellect' of humans is superior to that of any other species. My point was merely that certain attributes that make humans 'superior' can be found outside of 'homo sapiens', although admittedly, to a lesser degree and with more rarity. I would be glad to, but I don't have the time today. All I can say for now is that I believe my 'theory' has been reasonably consistent. I have long been looking for, and thinking of, a 'theory of being' that is beyond refutation. Religion hasn't done it (for me) and Rothbard hasn't done it. So far Darwin and Nietzsche, in my opinion, have come the closest to 'seeing it as it is'. I have said in the past that 'rights' are bestowed, so it doesn't matter if you are aware of them or not. ('a' grants or bestows 'rights to b') For example, are you aware that in Canada, you are now allowed to keep your head if you are found wearing a disguise in the woods? You have been granted a right you probably weren't even aware you had. Evidently, a long time ago, the gov't (the Crown) had a big problem with 'highwaymen' and banditry, so a law was passed that 'being found in the woods while wearing a disguise' was a capital offense. Only recently was it discovered that this 'law' was still on the books! The point is, rights come from the issuer, not the issuee.

Dear RB, Usually men only go temporarily blind when trying to procure sex in the bar at closing time. The old joke is "No one is ugly at 2:00 am". I found this to be an empty threat, because even though my eyesight is failing, I can still reach my dick.

Dear RB, Well done, and kudos to her. I hope she does do well, fourth place for a rookie at the Indy 500 is stellar. Well, this is a political forum, so if your 'women's stuff' is political, it should be able to fit under one of the categories, and if it isn't political, then it should be put somewhere else. At least according to the moderator.

Dear Hugo, Just to clarify, another of my dictionaries defines 'idiot' as someone with the mental capacity equivalent to a child under 3. 'Imbecile' was as a child 3-8, and 'moron' was a child 8-12. I would think it a safe assumption that the parameters were the median intellect of said groups at the time of the classification. The debate rages within the abortion crowd. However, I do understand that a fetus will become a human, and not a penny. But not all of us, as I pointed out. You claim 'all humans are superior' when they are not. The vast majority are, indeed, superior the the majority of any other species, and I'll agree. However, the notion of language, using tools and even a rudimentary 'rights theory' exist among other species. There are certain animals that have the capacity to perform tasks such as guiding the blind, etc. and they can outperform certain humans at said tasks. I have heard of the 'handicapped' (or differently-abled, or whatever the PC term is now) being assisted in daily life by 'helper-monkeys', but I have never heard someone desiring a 'helper-retard'. You seem to say that 'rights should only be extended to the 'superior', and I say that that definition is subjective and arbitrary. I understand that humans are unique. What I am saying is that rights are defined in the mind of the individual, and are therefore always subjective. It is akin to saying "I'm better than you are, so I have a right to exist but you don't". That would be almost understandable if there was a specific goal in mind that needed to be obtained, but we share the same goal...to be.

Dear geoffrey, Not too blind, just too complacent. It is no wonder, though, for it is the belief of many Canadians that the Liberals just got caught this time. The headlines are carefully constructed to sensationalize, and it doesn't matter which party is in power. If you read "Shocking Revelation! Federal gov't less than honest!"or "Feds show favouritism when awarding contracts!" or the biggest laugh, "OMG! Federal Gov't Acted Irresponsibly With Taxpayer's Money!" I doubt too many people would be thinking 'oh dear, I'd better sit down, this is such a bombshell...'

Dear Hugo, from the same dictionary,...idiot: syn. Idiot, imbecile and moron denote a person who is mentally deficient. The idiot is incapable of learning and understanding, and is completely helpless. An imbecile may learn to communicate with others, but is incapable of earning his own living. A moron may take a normal place in society, but needs constant supervision. As to the parameters of these labels, I am not the one to ask, for I didn't create them. Interesting, though, both 'natural law and natural rights' were in this dictionary, and here is what it says... natural law: A rule of conduct supposed to be inherent in man's nature and discoverable by reason alone. natural rights: Rights with which mankind is supposedly endowed by nature Not lately, but when I do die, that is what will happen. I desire no pine or oaken casket, nor a crypt. The peoples of The First Nations call it 'the cycle of life', and hold that man's lot isn't to interfere with it or alter it, but to be a part of it. It would seem that you think Latimer's motivation is the key. If he did what he did out of 'compassion' (to end her suffering) then it was wrong, for he transgressed her 'rights'. If he did what he did out of selfishness, then it was merely 'justifiable homocide', for he freed himself by killing his 'slave-owner', by using overwhelming force to defend his 'right' to freedom.

Dear Hugo, According to my 'Standard College Dictionary', Canadian edition, (1963)mental deficiency: a condition including all types of idiocy, imbecility, and moronism, characterized by subnormal intelligence to the extent that the individual is handicapped from participating fully in ordinary life. retarded: Slowed down or backward in mental development or school achievement. retard: to hinder the advance or course of; impede

Dear Hugo, I think you are the one not paying attention. I am saying that your or my interpretation and administration of rights, whether they be for or against, A, B, or both, is irrelevant unless I enter the equation using overwhelming force. Until that time, Darwin's 'theory of rights' rules all things. No, he can have thoughts of them (rights), he can imagine he has the right to reproduce asexually and produce his own offspring, he can imagine he 'owns' all that he can and cannot see, but these only exist in his mind. They can only be of any value, and become realized, if someone or something else agrees, or disagrees and yet you win. Indeed. For a while I thought you agreed. But, you seem to hold the same prejudice as Hitler, the superior power gains, (and you say rightfully so), superior rights. Hitler held his theories of race, too, as Aryans being demonstrably 'superior'. However, to simplify things a bit, what of the 'mentally retarded'? Many cannot even live on their own, let alone build a pyramid or develop 'rights theories'. Are they superior just because they (barely) fit into the family Hominiodea? Robert Latimer, for example, chose to euthanize his severely handicapped daughter and went to jail for it. (His justification was that she was in terrible and constant pain. For some, there is no justification) Should he have just wheeled her down to the end of his driveway when she turned 18 and 'set her free'? It might have earned him public scorn for eternity, but it would have been well within the rules of 'natural law', (and would have been an entirely different criminal case) for she would have been an adult, and solely responsible for her own keeping. The Terry Schiavo case is another example of 'artificially granting superiority' to those that don't possess it. Therefore, anywhere you draw that line is arbitrary. How do you go from 'equal to lesser' so easily? Do you mean 'lesser' because it would be less than what you have already decided to allot yourself?Very well Hugo, I justify my existence because I share it with, and am an equal part of, all things that exist. Now you are admitting that 'sufficient force' (In my words, overwhelming force) is the crux of the 'rights' matter.

Dear Army Guy, I shall correct you. To the best of their (IDF's) knowledge, one of the homes they destroy by bulldozing is one in which the 'suicide bomber' previously lived. Usually, as Black Dog points out, the 'terrorist' is dead and the home is still bulldozed to 'teach the others a lesson'. A quote from the book "Intifada", by top Israeli reporters Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari (1989)

Dear Hugo, It is not the rights of one over the other that is in question, it is the rights to existence of both that we should grant. I am not saying we should shoot the gazelle on behalf of the lion, or shoot the lion to protect the gazelle. It is what you do, and how you assign rights, that is the key. Loss of habitat, poisoning,etc are the true evils. We should interfere with them as little as possible, and let the lion decide whether or not he will grant the right to exist to the gazelle. You are the one that is saying that it is perfectly fine to kill them both for your own end, because they are lesser beings and therefore unworthy of your rights theory. States always rise out of anarchy. It is not solely because certain people want power over the others, but more because people believe that there is safety in numbers. With the absence of a gov't, and therefore police, those that would transgress (or assign) rights to others would surely band together, to become more powerful. Whether they be slavers, Nazis or cannibals, one either has to field the strength and overwhelming power to keep one's head, or hope that the new group of bandits that arrive at your doorstep grant you 'the right to live'.