theloniusfleabag

Dear Hugo, You mean my parents lied about the stork, then? Yes, I believe I could. The 'non-zero mass' reference is implying that love has a physical mass that can be measured and weighed. Theoretically, a wave of light cannot have mass since no object with mass can attain the speed of light. According to Einstein's theory, mass increases with velocity, and the energy recuired to accelerate that mass increases exponentially, until it reaches the point of needing an infinite amount of energy to attain light speed. Love, on the other hand, is a chemical formula created in the brain. I have used this same argument to prove what 'God' is. If one could (providing it was legal, or never found out about) take fluid from the brains of human test subjects, and compared them, one could isolate the chemical formula that is 'god' (or love). You would then have 'liquid god' (or love) in a jar or vial, measurable and real.

Dear Hugo, What about love and babies? While 'love' is metaphysical, an intangible abstract, it can lead two individuals to create something that did not exist before, (and wouldn't have existed) which is another human individual. Now, if love unrequited, or discarded, can change to hate, and lead an individual to another, different or counter-action, does 'love' not share the same qualities of existence as, say, a photon? Can Love theoretically have a 'non-zero mass when at rest'? After all, it can cause a change in direction of another entity, yet can't be weighed or measured.

Dear kimmy, Indeed, and it is likely. However, it is imperative that international law, and therefore the UN (or an organization of states like the UN) be the sole judge of international transgressions, not individual nations. The risk of acting unilaterally could place the world back in the days of pre-wwII, with allegiances, alignments and alliances. While I would like to agree, and perhaps years ago would have, Canada should not be doing anything that gives the unilateral actions of the US any sort of legitimacy. here is a strange analogy of the Canada/US relationship.... suppose your next door neighbour joins the Hell's Angel's, and starts a couple of 'turf wars', assassinates some rival gang members, and gets really, really rich. Then, your neighbour says..."Things are starting to get pretty hot, and there may be some shooting around here...no fault of mine, of course,...But, I am going to build a bulletproof fence around my property. Say, why don't I include your place when I build it? Just think, a free bulletproof fence! How could you possibly not want it?"

Dear I miss Trudeau, What???With the rest of the statement, I think you are getting Hugo's argument. Individuals decide upon or invent societies, and individuals decided upon or invented gov't, to control the other individuals.

Dear I Miss Trudeau, I believe what Hugo is trying to explain is what almost everyone calls 'the soul'. He has also taken the position of an 'absolute no' with regard to the question 'can something come from nothing?', though this may label him an atheist to some.

Dear Hugo, The same goes for God and light. Light has no measurable mass, yet can move an object. I agree with the rest, though, individuals created God.The Terrible Sweal: Any creature exhibiting the behaviour of 'hierarchy' has a 'society'.

Dear Army Guy, One thing that many are overlooking (or aren't being told) is that North Korea cannot hit the USA with missiles...none of the so-called 'rogue nations' can. This is from Jane's Defence Weekly. The distance from Seoul to Honolulu is 4550 miles, or about 7,000km. Clearly, 'rogue-nation' missiles are not a legitimate threat. Unless Russia, Germany or Britain sudden goes 'rogue'.

Dear Mr. Hardner, I took part in just such a forum (as did caesar), regarding Foreign Affairs and Canada's future in the world. It was run very well, tightly moderated, and both caesar and I hope to see more of it in the future. I do not know what impact we participants actually had, if any, but it sure made us feel as though we finally had a say in gov't policy. I suppose it might be tricky to push through, though, because the 'unwashed masses' will be usurping the 'think-tank' crowd, and while I think that it is a great idea, the gov't doesn't like change.

...a nation wouldn't launch a missile against another if it had a chance of winning...it would only do it if it had a chance of losing...a big chance...I believe the term is 'revenge from the grave'...Dyer is right, the US is preparing defences for 'revenge strikes'...

Dear Stoker, This would only be a feasible target if the 'rogue nation' were planning to follow up with a landing force in the immediate area. I think most Canadians, if they saw a missile flying over their heads, would start betting...Washington or New York? The only reason the US wants Canadian participation is so that IF they shoot down a missile over Canada, and the 'fallout' kills people or damages property, they would have negated responsibility for it by claiming 'Canada was a part of it and knew of, and agreed to, the risks'. As far as 'rogue nations' or 'terrorists' attacking Canada directly, I would probably be more afraid of a snowball launched from Hades..... As Black Dog points out with his quote from Gwynne Dyer, (one of the few, true contemporary military geniuses) a missile attack from a rogue nation would only ensure it's own destruction. Not that this is an impossibility, for many individuals in Western nations have chosen to die via the 'suicide by cop' confrontations, to have a nation choosing do this is unbelievable. Further, the rogue nation would have the members of the UN against them, and become international pariahs, should they launch an ICBM against anyone. This scenario is just not realistic. If you'll recall, the 9/11 attacks were only carried out against the symbols of American wealth and power. They were not planned to kill the maximum amount of people, for the death toll could have been exponentially higher. It is time to look at serious issues, not politico-worthy or media-fantasy 'might be' events. The questions every American should be asking is "what would I attack, if I was going to...." Then, examine the motive. The answers will be vastly different if the rest of the sentence reads... a. invade b. send a message c. kill as many people as possible

Dear PocketRocket, Well said, and touche. I suppose taking 'pot shots' at others is uncalled for, and it has no real inherent value. Mind you, I didn't see a whole lot of value (or truth) in the post I was responding to either.As a former 'habitual pot-smoker' myself, I feel I am qualified to resond to this subject. I am in full agreement with Black Dog, as it worked for alcohol, a more damaging drug, and the first real 'gateway' or 'stepping stone' to becoming a 'Wasted Rock Ranger'.

Dear eureka, You are quite correct with this statement. In the book 'Imperial Hubris:Whe the West is losing the War on Terror', the author (who at the time was 'Anonymous', but later resigned from the CIA and was the 'Bin Laden desk' of the CIA's counter-terrorism unit) revealed that the USA had absolutely no idea what numbers al Qaeda actually had, and claims of percentages were merely for the media. If this claim of 75% percent were at all truthful, they should have said "We have captured 75% of an unknown number. We have no idea what 100% is, but the number 75% make it look like we're winning, big time. Much better than the 50% we claimed earlier".

I heard that one of the first things to 'go' with pot smokers is syntax, spelling and grammar. They often ramble on about vaguely connected ideas, then lose that train of thought and quickly start mumbling about something else.

Dear TokyoTakarazuka, An excellent post. While the party name , NSDAP might by it's title appear left-wing, in reality it was never practiced with much conviction. Hitler practiced something more akin to 'social engineering' rather than adhering to 'socialism'. For most fascists, the tenets of 'inclusion and equality' were narrowly and subjectively defined, with their own borders being the outside edge. I would say that an true anarchist represents the farthest right on the spectrum, but no one can last long without allegiances.

Dear TokyoTakarazuka, Actually, world opinion was in favour of the US going after the Taliban, though no UN resolution gave them the authority, at the time, to do so. However, no one really could blame them for it, unlike Iraq. The wording should be 'only', not 'also' in your above statement. Yes, some terrorists hate democracy, and the US, etc. but they do not hate America's democracy, for I'm sure I have never read a story about an 'arab terrorist' ranting about the Ohio Primaries, or local school councils. They rebel against democracy imposed upon them at the end of a gun, when for many, that is in direct violation of their interpretation of scripture. Too true. However, the line of what constitutes terrorism gets blurred consistently and continuously. That is a key ingredient to an arms race. If someone has the capability to counter what you have, then you have to either find a way around it or have the means to flood it.

Dear Army Guy, Hugo hits the nail on the head with this one. The Bush Admin (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, etc) are lying to the American public, and the world, when they say "They [terrorists] hate our freedoms and democracy, and this is why they attack us". As to the scale of the 9/11 attacks, they were actually very minor. The deaths, of course, are a tragedy, but what is worse is it being hijacked and used to further an agenda that caused them in the first place.A quote from the book Future:Tense, (2004) by Gwynne Dyer, pg 134. Was 9/11 a tragedy? You bet, to most. But to the ones who keep reminding everyone about it, they said "Yippee! Now we have our excuse to go after Iraq!"

Dear Montgomery Burns, This is a very common, yet silly myth that I shall dispell right now. Perhaps you should try a little reading... source:wikipediaYou'll notice the words "right wing" above, (at least I hope you do, right-wingers can be awfully myopic when it comes to truth, or to things they don't wish to see) and both Hitler and Mussolini styled their leadership after it. Generally, if you wave a flag, you are moreso a fascist than not. The rule of rule, is that; totalitarianism=right wing (or fascism), and democracy=left-wing. It has to do with either seeking power or equality. This has seldom ever been practiced in the real world, because almost every country or ruler has mixed their rule of the country with the system of economy, and generally tainted both. This is why the term 'Marxist-Leninist has to be broken into two parts. One of them, Marxism, is an economic system, and Leninism was the totalitarian style of enforcing law within the country. The problem is, they really aren't compatible.

Dear Army Guy, Canada as a target is highly unlikely, I should say it is even foolish to think so. Canada, unlike the US, has not pissed off most of the world with it's arrogance and greed. We don't have our collective heads up our asses, and can look at threat assessment in a realistic fashion.

Dear Montgomery Burns, Quite a hilarious post. Especially this... I'll take a pound of whatever your smoking...As far as countries that are due to collapse, the USA is perilously close. Unless they get their 'poop in a group' soon, it is going to be a very hard fall.

Dear August1991, Heroes and EMS workers, also... one must be aware of the consequences before one takes action. Colour me gone.

Dear Slavik44, Whoops, I was going to condemn this thread until I realized...Troll! Complete with his own response (Digby). The best response is no response at all.

Dear Slavik44, Can you say 'troll poster?' Say, 90% of the last few hundred 'new members' with 2 or less posts each? Some with more?

IMR, In the Calgary herald today, there is an article entitled;"Turner says Fox Bush Propaganda", the Article reads... It seems Black Dog isn't the only one not afraid to call a spade a spade. Not sure how far left you think Ted Turner is, but if you see him as 'wayyyy left' of you, I must shudder.

Dear RB, While I am pro-choice, there are conflicting arguments for and against, that rattle in my brain from time to time. Here is a good one against...Abortion is ultimately, in most cases (though not exclusively), is evading responsibility for one's action. If a man and woman choose to have sex, knowing that they run the risk of pregnancy, they are, in effect, 'rolling the dice' as to the outcome. Just imagine if you took say, a pair of dice and labelled the outcome accordingly, with reality. Ok, roll... snake eyes, the guy is a serial killer 2. you contract HIV. 3. good sex but contract lesser STD 4. woman gets pregnant 5.woman gets pregnant 6-8. Good sex, no side effects 9-10. not great sex, and you wish the other person would stop calling 11. you end up marrying this person boxcars, you decided on just fellatio and only contract a single bloodshot eye Now, why is 'murder' an acceptable 'out' in only the pregnancy rolls? If you roll the dice, there are strange and wacky consequences, and everybody should accept them. It is somewhat hypocritical to say.."Ill accept the results if I win, but I'll seek to negate my responsibility to pay if I lose".

Dear August1991, While it is true, many services have come to depend on software, it is not the 'be-all and end-all'. Computers make some things faster (and some things slower), but the world still moved on, trade flourished, as did science, without them. Hate to nitpick here, but the 9/11 commission report gave the number of civilians killed at under 3,000, (not including the EMS and law enforcement casualties), so 2,000+ is not 'several thousand'. Further, a threat is an impending action, so 'the US military response' is not to the 'threat of 9/11, because it already happened. It may take the will of more than one person, true, but not by much. Evidently Bush Jr. had planned to invade Iraq from his first day in office. He had help with the scheme(and I'm sure more than a few words of encouragement) from his father's NSC advisor, Dick Cheney.