theloniusfleabag

Dear caesar, I think I now now a little better what kind of person keeps the 'aggressive dog breeds' alive... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...pit_bull_videos People like this should be banned.

Dear Black Dog, Indeed, I cannot imagine that Jewish people feel too much differently over the Israeli borders than Arabs feel about them. I don't expect the Jewish National Congress in the US and Canada to say,"Israel's problems with Palestine are none of our concern, that is the 'Israeli Jews' and the 'Alliyah' people's problem". I doubt State Of Israel Bonds would be such a hot ticket if that were the case.

Dear caesar, I don't think this our most serious concern. Any new product on the market must go through testing, including failures. Until it is up and running, they won't be able to sell it to any other foreign nation, either.The biggest concern is where the missiles would be coming from and why. Canada has the largest (reasonably) untainted collection of natural resources in the world, and if someone were bent on world domination, they shouldn't poison their own future breadbasket. If it is a terrorist missile threat, any 'terrorist' would probably find it easier to smuggle in a WMD into the continental US that to harbour expectations that one or two could be launched from Europe or Asia with any degree of success. So, the US seems to want to rely on the 'NATO gambit', guilting Canada into the 'all for one and one for all' spirit of NATO. Yet their own actions seem to wilfully exclude them from the protection of comraderie.

Dear Newfie Canadian, I am guessing that the polls indicate what a lot of canadians feel, the US is making their own enemies, and we don't want the fallout raining down on us. If we don't need missile defence, why should we risk Canadians in 'Operation Human Shield"? Besides, if 'the lights go out and the balloon goes up" the whole world is pretty much screwed.

In the news today, US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci stated that he believed Canada would agree to the proposed 'missile defence shield'. http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pag...ticleID=1812698 There is some speculation, however, that it would be the PM PM's last signature given the minority gov't stature of the federal Liberals. Would signing on be the last nail in the coffin for the Liberals? I doubt very much that the majority of Canadians are in favour, and parties such as the BQ are adamantly opposed. If Martin signs the bill, (I don't know what cards he may be playing against the US, the BSE border closures to cattle, or trade tariffs) and receives a no-confidence vote, we could see another federal election this summer. Ghastly prospect, considering that there was a dearth of viable alternatives to the Liberals last time around. Could the BQ of PQ form the next minority gov't? Of will it be the NDP? Or will Martin say to the US, "Sorry, boys, the will of the majority is against."??

Dear August1991, Diane Francis wrote an article some years ago (in The Alberta Report, I believe, though it might have been in the Calgary Sun) saying the same thing. She said "we should have those immigrant workers earning wages that they're used to" or something very similar. Well, lets take a look at the ups and downs of no minimum wage legislation. Calgary might have more employment because a textile mill could operate here instead of China or Bangladesh if they could get workers at 15 cents an hour. Calgary would be more desirable, even at the same wage, so expect a a crush of immigrants. Where would they live? Shanty towns, on the edge of the city, near the dump...er I mean, grocery store. How do you like those open sewers, the tuberculosis and typhoid going into our water supply? They'd have to raise their own chickens and goats in the 'front yard', too, of course, to supplement their diet. I don't think the property values would go up much for those living next to 'Shantyown'. Tough to collect infrastructure taxes there too, I bet. On the other hand, as a small business owner, I can't afford to pay $10 an hour, minimum, or my business wouldn't survive. My wife and I have, but don't likje to, put in 14 hrs a day running our business. We offered $7 an hr plus a profit-sharing system, and there are many who umped at the chance. We had over 40 resumes, and hired 2 part-timers who were eager to work. Our choices, admittedly, were limited to those that were either young and living at home or sharing accomodation, or 'retired' women (or men) that had a spouse still working and providing the main household income. It is, in our estimation, the fairest system we could come up with. I don't think that minimum wage needs to be raised exorbitantly, but I don't think it should be abolished either. Sure, I'd love to pay someone 15 cents an hr, and pocket the rest, but I really don't think that's fair or reasonable.

Dear RB, Indeed. I believe Argus is in the right, legislated EE is discrimination, no matter how thin you slice it. In Calgary, a few years ago, the Police service said it would never compromise it's hiring standards no matter what the cause may be. A few months later, it said it needed to have 'more representation from the First Nations Peoples', (assumably to fill an EE Quota) and since there was a dearth of qualified applicants, they lowered the hiring standards to a grade 10 level education for 'Aboriginals' instead of a high school diploma. In a nutshell, they were willing to hire less qualified people, based solely on race, and I don't know how this can possibly be justified, no matter what field one is talking about. There was a kafuffle over gender discrimination amongst the EMS standards, too. (I don't remember who exactly, but I think it was KrustyKidd who posted a lengthy article about this one). In the corporate world, if a company has over X(not sure what the official number is) number of employees, they must hire at least 5%(again, not positive about the number) 'Aboriginals', regardless of qualification. The Gov't has it's quotas too, as Argus states. What if a company arose amongst the First Nations (Such as Peace Hills Trust Bank, run by the Samson Cree Nation) and was told "You must hire a certain number of 'whites', regardless of whether or not they are qualified." I believe they would have every right to protest, on the grounds of racial discrimination. I don't believe in the much used term 'reverse-discrimination', for it is all the same. Racial and/or gender quotas are wrong and unfair.

Dear Argus, An excellent post. I have quoted some of it because it is very true, and truly understandable to only a few. There are some IDF soldiers who disagree with gov't policy, and some refuse to serve 'in the territories'. Their conscience won't allow them to be put in a position to have duty usurp morality. Still, it has to be tough for them. The IDF (made of militia, or everyday people) has as it's main duty the protection of Israel and it's people, but sometimes the orders, such as demolishing homes out of revenge, goes beyond what they feel is legitimate defence. A good read about this very thing can be found in "Intifada", by Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari, two top Israeli reporters.

Dear daniel, Indeed, this is exactly the case when August1991 asked me to verify information I had posted regarding a modern slavery issue. I recalled reading about it in the newspaper at the time, some 4-5 years ago, but the only link I could find on google (within a reasonable time frame) was a related article, and not the original that I had recalled. To be fair, sometimes news stories can sometimes change as more information is found out. Such is also the case, I believe, with maplesyrup's call for banning rottweillers for alledgedly killing a sleeping child, when the full facts of the case were not yet known. I think that the onus should be on the poster of information to provide at least some relevant 'proof' of quoted facts, when asked, and doubters can look up information to either corroborate or discredit those claims.

Dear Argus, Technically, a statement like that is patently 'racist', if you are judging every individual of a nation by the actions of the gov't, or it's religious leaders, when they are, by default, the minority. That is exactly what racism is, judging others by the judgement you have placed upon a group they belong to, be it religious or (especially) ethnic divisions. It makes one appear racist if one begins tirades starting with "Those...."

Dear Big Blue Machine, Nothing, really. The problem is that humans won't let it stop there. Besides, the idea of 'creation' is patently human anyway. You humans can't get over the idea that if something exists, someone must have made it exist. Perfectly logical, if you are talking about a bridge or a painting. "Look, a bridge, someone must have made it!". But the same notion is applied to the sky, a rock etc. "Look, a rock! Someone must have made it!". It is the projection of human interaction with the world, made upon that which was here before humans.Further, people inevitably claim to have talked with said 'creator' and make up self-serving rules that 'the creator of the third rock from the sun' wants you to follow. "He told me, 'You must fondle a big floppy donkey dick every Thursday, so that I might watch and giggle". There is no end to it.

Dear August1991, The gov't hasn't got the resources to be as 'evil' as corporations. (I'm sure Hugo will disagree based on whom of the two has a monopoly on 'violence') If there is a 'big brother' out there, it is surely corporate America and not the Canadian Gov't. The gov't does not have the resources to use huge media campaigns, attempt subliminal advertising, assign 'spyware' to your home computer, spam you, or any of the other nefarious means of coersion available to them that 'the market' does.

Dear KK, I think that a 'good' gov't should set an example."A government is good when those near are happy, and those far off are attracted". Confucius, Analects nos. 44 and 99. Hopefully not 'Black Jaques Chiraq'! At least Bin Laden is honest. (Somewhat kidding here, except Bin Laden is honest)

Dear August1991, I believe the reference is to the recent crackdown against the usage of the US greenback in Cuba. How effective it will be is another story.

Dear Big Blue Machine, The problem is that 'dangerous dogs' are only apparent after the fact. Further, knee-jerk reactions like calling for wholesale banning of breeds, or people who spread false information such as only serve to cloud the real issues.

Dear KK, Actually, Israel is looking after it's own interests, and is quite derogatory towards the 'the west', the US in particular. (Israel also considers the US as 'unholy'. If a temple or other site is built using 'goy' labour or resources, it can still be deemed to be 'ok' as long as it is sanctified, or 'made kosher' after the filthy unbelievers have left)So, to qualify, one would naturally pick the lesser of two evils in a tie. Unless you were on the side of law.

Dear Argus, Actually, Israeli reporters in 'Palestine' are more unwelcome by the IDF . They have said that they refuse to protect them should they come into harm's way, because the IDF doesn't want the beating to death of protesters to be shown on TV. It can make for some 'bad press'. The same goes for the IDF using Palestinian children as target practice; if it was caught on tape, and the soldiers get aquitted, it is that much tougher for the gov't courts to plead 'impartiality'. Indeed, could the french Resistance of WWII be called 'worse' than the Nazi occupation? (Bear in mind, France had it way better than Eastern Europe, while under the jackboot). It seems that the media, and the 'nearly totally ignorant' give the rest a choice between a for the Israeli's or a for the Palestinians. But, you are right, they both need to be criticized. Suicide-bombing of civilians is disgusting and abhorrent. It is made all the worse because it is so easy to do. It is, in a way, genocide, when directed at a particular identifiable group. The actions of the Israeli's aren't much better, and both sides seem content to trade, what we in the west consider, abhorrent atrocity for abhorrent atrocity. How to pick sides? Israel's pseudo-democracy (where only the minority Jews can vote)? Or the Palestinian's claim of defending invasion? It is tough to pick a side when neither party has demonstrably shown that they are acting from 'moral high ground'.

Dear Terrible Sweal, I voted for perfectly sensible. Mind you, this is out of viewing God in a religious sense, not in an 'agnostic's (sic) sense. It is entirely possible that a 'God' (or creator) exists that resembles none of 'human's religions'. Most religions, at least the major ones, claim to know the mind of God because they say He revealed it to them. It is not through any deduction that people claimed to have derived this knowledge, but through His Will that they (or we) be told. Now, Islam does not deny Abraham (or Ibrahim) or Jesus, or Moses, nor the messages they 'received from God', but they claim Muhammed received NEW instructions from God, and these are the ones we must follow. Let's face it, the notion of God is pretty universal, it is just religions that 'transcribe God's will" into day to day instructons, mostly to ensure that the church remained rich and powerful. Further, 'God's will' smacks remarkably of 'man's will' since we have 'personified God' to make him in our likeness. Here's the kicker... I have discovered exactly what God is, and can put Him in a jar in liquid form. I have called 'Him' H2SOteric. All thoughts (and memory) in humans are a result of chemical reactions in the brain, and therefore they truly only exist inside one's own cranium. If I was to say to a group of experimental subjects, "think of a chair", and then extracted some of that cranial fluid that changed when they did so, I would have the rudimentary 'brain-fluid' sample of some 'chair'. If I showed them a specific chair, then removed it, and told the subjects "think of THAT chair", my chemical formula would be that much more refined. The same applies to God, He is, as far as humans are concerned, a chemical formula existing (possibly only, but even if not, for sure) in one's brain. So, to know 'His will' is perfectly plausible, because it comes from the same place He did.

Dear Stoker, I think you'll find that some people aren't entirely honest.

Dear PocketRocket, Actually, I think they are called 'Afridis', or some similar spelling. They are heavy into the narco-trade and smuggling, and are devoutly religious unless it's business. Even the Pashtuns, and other tribes, don't mess with them.

Dear Stoker, The sinner has a vested interest that the religious be wrong, the religious hedge their bets on the side of faith, but often practice 'jack-(insert religion here)' and the church has a vested interest in it's collection plate.None of them have anything on the others as far as 'an inside tip' goes.

Dear eureka, I suspect you are right. It doesn't really matter what you think, that is how it's done, by many countries. The US has many wacky laws, some of them have to do with not selling arms to brutal dictatorships. One way of circumventing these laws is to obtain an 'end user certificate' and have them (the end-user) move the goods along. (They can always claim that they 'bought too much', and needed to sell the surplus, or, their needs have changed) Another way is to have it shunted through an off-shore proprietary, which isn't subjected to US law. The latter method is how Halliburton continues to trade with Iran, even though they (Iran) are part of the 'axis of evil'.

Dear Stoker, I stand corrected, thank you for pointing that out. My denomination went from 'Lapsed Catholic' to 'Devout Agnostic' when I was about 16. Now I belong to "The Church of Sh*t Happens", and my diocese is "Our Lady of Perpetual Cynicism". I do think that to some degree science has been able to explain that which was previously inexplicable, however even Darwinism does not discount, in any a priori nor empirical way, the notion of God. It does, however, come into conflict with many a religious text.

Dear caesar, I believe the boy was probably not sleeping, and from the story I read a few days later, it was the 'drug-dealing' mom and her new boyfriend that were probably 'sleeping it off'. Dogs (and indeed wild animals) do not attack sleeping children. Even amongst the wildest of animals, this doesn't make sense. There could have been (if the child were indeed sleeping) no territorial intrusion, or even implied threat. The only reason they would have killed a sleeping child is if it were for food. Highly dubious.The most likely case is that these dogs were raised to be vicious, to protect one drug-dealer from other drug-dealers and/or from the addicts. I further doubt that much attention was paid to these dogs, as most of the family's attention was focused on drugs.

Canadians do not have the choice of 'whether or not to subsidize US cable garbage'. It comes with your basic cable subscription. All of the 'quality channels' are the add-ons. About 10 years ago I asked my cable provider to NOT have ABC, CBS and NBC as part of what I would be willing to pay for, and they told me NO. You must pay for these and then you can decide what you would additionally like to have. I have since given up watching television, save for a few news and history shows and specials. (The wife loves 'the grinch' every year, but it keeps on getting more and more edited) 'Freedom of choice', my fanny.