theloniusfleabag

Dear eureka, Nonsense. Hitler's ambition was always Russia. France and Britain declared war on Germany out of treaty obligations to Poland. (By the way, Germany only took half of Poland; Russia invaded the other half!)The 'Pact of Steel', the non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany was only to give Germany some time to prepare for 'Barbarossa'. Even Stalin knew Hitler was coming east, he just didn't know when. Hitler wanted 'living space' for the german 'superior race', and was going to reduce the 'degenerate Slavs' to the rank of helots (slaves). This idealism was later reflected by the treatment used against the different occupied territories. Western countries, and their prisoners, were treated much better than those in the east.

Dear shackwacky, Not, I met him because we worked together, and we were the only two employees. I also met several gay people as 'friends of friends', and some as fellow members of a volunteer organization. Others I met through my current place of work. That is difficult to say, there are so many of both. 'Extroverted' is not the basis for being 'likable', as many extroverts can be obnoxious and rude. At times, they all seem to be. At other times, they are all wonderful. Just like my wife. Nothing of the sort.

Dear Argus, 'An eye for an eye' is practiced today by 'those brutal muslims' you always refer to. There are cases when I wonder about whether it would be a good thing or not. There are some websites, like Ogrish, where you can watch some of these executions. In one case, two men (In an Arabic country) were convicted of raping a girl. The two men were chained to posts near a wall, and the family of the girl were given AK47s and allowed to shoot the rapists. (Not all Muslim countries stone the girl to death for 'dishonouring the family'). While it was interesting, retribution killings like this are quite disturbing, especially when they are public. Mind you, it could lead to an overall decrease in crime.

Dear August1991, Nonsense. The competition to be 'beautiful' generates billions. Almost as much as what the competition 'to define beautiful' creates.

Dear August1991, The Mongols didn't have Einsatzgruppen troops trying to de-populate the country for 'lebensraum' for their 'superior race' though. They didn't suggest that "All males over 15 be shot, and SS 'stallions' released after (Hermann Goering). While partisan activity was very detrimental to Germany's efforts, had there not been an 'eastern front' using the bulk of German resources, there would have been no partisans left, in short order.

Dear shackwacky, A while ago I noted to a friend of mine, (he is gay) that the majority of gay men I have met seem to have a tremendous sense of humour, while the majority of gay women seem to be a bit standoffish, and sometimes, angry and bitter. Interestingly, a lot of gay women I have met had been previously married or in 'committed' heterosexual relationships. A lot of them had books on 'dealing with rape' in their libraries, too. Sexual orientation is 'a circumstance', as you above note, as well as the factor of living with sometimes secret homosexuality, in a society that is often homophobic, and sometimes overtly anti-gay. Don't seem to know why you are confused.

Dear Argus, There are far too many 'what ifs' to conclude what the deciding factor in WWII was. The biggest one would probably be "What if Barbarossa had been launched on schedule, and Hitler directed his drive solely on Moscow? The USSR most likely would have fallen, at least as far as the Urals, in 1941. Then, the drive into the Caucasus ould have been a 'mopping up' operation rather than a critical, resource draining, sideshow. After than, millions of troops and equipment would have been available to focus on the elimination of Britain, and it's removal of a staging area for the D-day invasions would have rendered the western coast of Europe unassailable. There is a great board game called 'Axis and Allies', which I have played many times. It is based on accumulation and allotment of resources, and If Russia falls, the game is pretty much over. Not necessarily, but only a boob could lose once he has fortified his backdoor by conquest.

Dear Hugo, A lot of people don't believe in all-out anarchy. Some desire a functioning society that we can live peacably in. Nobody really wants to be in a position to say "The peasants are revolting". By dropping minimum wage altogether, the 'bottom drops out' of society in various ways. Standards of living would drop dramatically for those who would take this kind of work. Shanty towns with open sewers, for example. The owners of the factories employing people at 10 cents an hour would certainly have to move either uphill or upstream from places like this. Property values near such places would plummet. Physical force of some sort would become necessary to keep them from squatting in your yard, or moving next door, living 10 to a bedroom. Hardly comparable. Marx was an economist, Lenin was the brute. Marx's theories may have 'died on the table' if it weren't for Lenin.

Dear Hugo, I think you may have meant 'attracted'. This is another fallacy, where heterosexuals, especially 'homophobic ones', think that a gay person must find them attractive, based solely on the fact that they are both the same sex. Perhaps, by this logic, we should extend that segregation to the workplace, and re-instate segregated schools.

Dear Pateris, It is, and has been for hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years. However, mankind's influence on what naturally occurs in this 'self regulation cycle' is unprecedented, so we cannot predict it's immediate effects with any certainty. We can in the long term, though. Humans, as a species, reflect a specific 'modus operandi' that is akin to another un-natural (some may claim natural) anomaly. Cancer. What cancer is to humans, humans are to Earth. We just choose to live in denial that we could ever irreparably harm, let alone kill, our host.

Dear Terrible Sweal, If an ICBM were launched from another continent, save S. America, space based weapons would be the safest way, with minimum fallout, to counter such a threat. We've already 'weaponized' Earth to the nth degree, we have made personal greed the 'foremost right' in the world, what is going to have to change before we can stop exporting 'human nature' to space?

Dear caesar, Without self-aggrandizement, it was meant to be a Nietzchean reference; a look at the human species, detached from, and above it.

Dear RB, I must admit, I have never heard the words "Ooh la laaah, Margaret Thatcher" from any guy. Not all are drawn to the Pamela Anderson bimbo types, either. However, out of personal choice, I find Sandra Bullock very attractive, because of plain and simple beauty, 'honest good looks', as opposed to Julia Roberts and her collagen lips or Uma Thurman, who to me is just plain homely. I think most guys think that they themselves are handsome, and so fantasize about these women as though they'd be an easy score, but don't think beyond the superficial, like what it would be like to be in a relationship with this superficial beauty. For me, some of the runway model 'stick women' makes me think that having sex with them would be like 'screwing a sack of antlers', while the high mileage Pam Anderson bimbo types would be like 'throwing a hot dog down a hallway'.

Dear Argus, I think that this is unfortunately true. No real basis other than homophobia, though. I worked with a few gay men, one of whom I thought may have had a 'crush' on me. We ended up being very good friends, and since I am married, he knew he had no real hope for me. This did not, in any way, influence how either of us did our job, and, if in a foxhole under fire, I'd rather have a gay man pouring shells out at the enemy at my side rather than 'going it alone'. However, that is just me. I am comfortable with who I am. Sadly, I can see it too, but the youngsters should be told to smarten up, rather than have a discriminatory ban on valuable assets. Incidentally, how is job performance (of the gay person) affected by the difference of being openly or 'closeted' gay? It can only be detrimental if the person is still 'in the closet' as their mind will be distracted by fear. The real problems come from the homophobia of others.

Dear PocketRocket, It is August1991 that is mistaken. Mind you, your 'simplification' must be taken as species specific. Certainly, the cockroach is a winner in evolutionary terms, but what you describe is evolution amongst the cockroaches. If being born with two heads, or for humans, Down's Syndrome, or with red hair gave a person an advantage over the others of the same species with regard to hunting/gathering, and longevity, we would see this gene passed on more strongly, as they would be the ones more likely to reproduce. However, as the old joke goes, Q:"What's better than winning a Gold Medal at the Special Olympics?" A: Not being retarded.

Dear PocketRocket, While your take is quite funny, it seems that the US Army still believes it. Are they worried that gays in the military risk 'getting caught with their pants down' in combat situations? Interpreters, especially Arabic ones, are now, more than ever, crucial to US national security. It seems the US Army is placing it's own 'homophobia' ahead of national security.

Cunning linguist jokes aside, the US army evidently has 'fired' crucial Arabic and Farsi speaking specialists because of their sexual orientation. As speculated in the 9/11 commission report, the 9/11 attacks could possibly have been prevented by having more Arabic translators in the system when there was an obvious dearth. In one year, (I am not sure which one, but close to the run-up to the attacks) the number of students with an undergraduate in Arabic languages in the USA was six. [source: The 9/11 Commission Report] How can the US Army justify it's discrimination when so much is at stake? Will they say to the US public, "Well, Bin Laden won, he detonated a nuke in Washington DC, but the good news is, at least we purged the homos in our Army, even though they may have prevented the attacks..." What battle does the US military really intend to fight?

Dear Tawasakm, Unfortunately, the peanut gallery is full of parrots. The answer you won't get will be..."But Pres. Bush told me Saddam intended to get more WMD's in the future(because Bush is a mind-reader), He said Saddam was evil, and must be removed so the Muslims can be forced to have democracy!" The 'right' will parrot this nonsense because that is what they have been told to believe. I am presently reading the 9/11 Commission Report, and it is quite revealing regarding the 'gross errors' of the US gov't, and the misinformation I have seen in the media, especially about Clinton. The book 'Disarming Iraq' by hans Blix is another intersting read. While Blix is on the side of those who think that Saddam should have been removed anyway, he disagreed with the unilateral action taken by the US/UK and believes the invasion was decided upon before the expiry of the US/UK's resolution anyway. He was on the inside, so I tend to believe that his suspicions were correct.

Dear PocketRocket, Not an oversimplification, really, bang on the money. Many religious types deny evolution entirely, and some schools in the US are fighting in court, for and against, having 'evolution' branded as only a theory. I have visited a couple of 'Creationist' web sites, and the 'scientific' explanations debunking evolution are truly laughable. Makes me wonder how valuable a B.Sc is from Bible College.

Dear Pateris, You may be possibly correct, but the US has a history of not taking advice from anyone. Further, the US claims the concerns of Canadians (and others) that the missile shield development is a firm step toward the 'weaponization of space' is 'unfounded and baseless'. These two terms, in legal parlance, often mean that the accuser has no court-worthy proof. The use of these terms, all too often, has meant "The accusations are unfounded because we haven't announced it yet". Further, joining up with something we don't agree with legitimizes the course of action, and like the Pogroms against the Jews by the Nazis pre-WWII, escalation is harder to oppose if you just agreed to the previous step taken. This is in no way meant to compare the natures of the two programs, merely the method. It is called the 'slice of bologna technique'. If the slices are made thin enough, there becomes less reason to complain with each slice taken, and the 'slicer' can contend that, "I'm not after the whole thing, just another small slice, and after all, you didn't complain that much after the last slice, because it was small."

Dear I miss Reagan, Indeed, the nut and berry in a cave scenario is being practiced by Osama Bin Laden, but his courage of conviction doesn't mean I believe in the message.

Dear Mr. Hardner, If I may say, what a load. Life 'morphing to the movie-esque' is an example of 'devolving'. the notion of 'tabula rasa' only serves to become more powerful the more 'popular culture' pervades it, and usurps the role of 'environment' with an artifical, make believe one, and takes over with scribbling.

Dear Pateris, I personally like CBC. I also like some documentaries on the History Channel, and Discovery. I watch TV a couple of times a month, sometimes less. (The wife likes a couple of shows on A&E as well) but we cannot choose to have only these channels...we must subsidize crap like american sit-coms, Oprah and Jerry Springer. In fact, I am of the opinion that the 4 major stations in the US offer 99% garbage, yet I must pay them if I wnat to watch anything else. I don't find the CBC nearly as annoying, and the news programs they have can at least be counted upon to provide a little bit of unbiased truth, unlike FOX.

Dear Hugo, Much of the news and information is 'copyright protected' as well. Without infringing on 'intellectual property rights', small or independent broadcasters cannot afford these fees. Much of the news is 'bought off the wire' from independent reporters, all music is copyrighted, as are almost all broadcasts. Would it be possible to have an idependent station that broadcast solely 'napster downloads'? Would it be 'right'? I think the 'global intangebility' of the internet would render specific taxation impossible. They could only increase taxes on the service providers, with everyone paying an increased share for having access. If the internet truly grows to rival television and radio, I would expect big tax increases to internet providers.

Dear August1991, Many, many people feel that Universal Health Care is a sacred and inviolable right, something that we all (or mostly all) pay for and ought to receive. Some also argue that society as a whole, is better off when everyone is heathy and productive.If the majority of canadians believe in universal health care, rightly or wrongly, consideration should be given to 'the will of the majority'. I would much rather see 'bills passed' ala the US than the 'dictatorial mandate' system used in Canada, especially on such issues, but I suppose one could rightly say that democracy is still 'a work in progress'. The difference between a gov't vs. private interests running a hospital vs a service station are vast. The free enterprise system's ultimate goal is to collect the maximum amount of money while giving as little, and if possible, nothing, in return. Look at television. It generates billions in revenues, actors ar paid hundreds of millions, and when you stand up from the TV hours later, you can cup your hands and physically look at the value you received. Along those lines, and old wise man once said to me about 'wishing for stuff', "If you put your wishes in one hand, and shit in the other, which one will get filled up first?"