theloniusfleabag

Dear eureka, I had two uncles serve in Italy also. As bizarre coincidence would have it, I recently met someone who served with them. My dad served in the Canadian navy, and lost an arm in battle in 1944. He is still alive and kicking, just not as strongly as before.

Dear Argus, 'We' are involved. A manager for a factory making goods for JC Penny was recently fined $10,000 for his involvement in slavery. Then there is China, the US' (and Canada's) most favoured trading partner. A few big name shoe manufacturers have been known to use 'sweatshops and slavery' to increase profits. There are no labour or environmental laws in China, so tremendous savings can be had.

I stand corrected, perhaps it was another league and not the NHL. There has only been 1 lifetime suspension in the NHL, and it was not from the incident I described.

Dear caesar, There is, actually. It was years ago, but I recall seeing an interview with an 'excommunicated' NHLer. He had been accused of swinging a stick at the head of a rival player. He claimed he had just been checked, and lost his footing, with his swinging stick just missing the head of the player as he was skating away. The replay I saw was inconclusive with regard to intent, but the player was kicked out of the NHL permanently. I have seen much worse since then, with the league allowing a lot more than they ever have in the past. In fact, it is often said, 'the less you plan to do about something, the more you talk about it'. New penaties such as 'obstruction-something' are ridiculous. All the penalties are there if the refs would hust call them Interference is interference, holding (including holding the stick) is holding. All these new names for penalties are just to give the illusion that the league is 'cracking down' when they could have easily done so with the existing set of rules.

Dear caesar, Oops, me too. My last pertinent post to this topic ended with..

Dear Argus, All of these things can be done, none on a whim. That is why there are enough controls and laws to make unions un-needed. Indeed, Milton has run Air Canada into the ground, and seeks every excuse in the book why it isn't from 'bad management'. However, Victor Li walked away from his offer to buy Air Canada because the Union was unwilling to negotiate realistic investment terms. For some of the NHL maladies, I do blame the owners. However, salary arbitration and players 'holding out for more money' are just as guilty. An owner takes a gamble on a player with a large contract hoping it will generate revenue. Another team with more money can often 'outbid' that other team, and so it goes. Teemu Selanne was offered over 1 million as a rookie by Calgary, and Winnipeg (who had drafted but not yet signed Selanne)had to match the offer or risk losing one of the greatest rookies to enter the game. Then, when he became a free agent, the highest bidder gets him(usually). It is often a shame, because often these players only 'try' in the last year of their contract, hoping for a bigger one next time around.

Dear August1991, Identifying people by 'colour' is technically wrong, regardless of that colour. However, that colour remains regardless of what it is called. 'Negro' is spanish for black. 'Coon', a very derogatory term for 'coloured people', is from the word 'barracoon', a temporary holding cell or cage, for slaves and convicts. So, rightly, this term could be used for non-blacks who have spent time behind bars. African-Americans is a silly term at best. Not all dark-skinned people are from Africa (at least recently, and at one time we all were) and not all are Americans. Could someone be offended by this term also? I worked with a young man from Trinidad, and one day we were talking about racism. He told me his dad 'didn't like niggers' and I said "Um, you are kind of dark yourself, how does that figure?" He replied, "Oh no, he meant the Creoles in Trinidad. He said they were all lazy bums". It seems everyone has their bigotry. I saw an episode of "Kids in the Hall" where a 'slavic' cabbie was talking to a group of Ethiopian cabbies, and was trying to be friends. He said "When I say 'niggers', I don't mean you guys, I just mean the 'bad niggers". Ignorance is truly rampant, but is it cause for criminal/legal action if it is merely ignorance and not meant to be derogatory?

Dear caesar, This is only partly true. However, my point is that they (the union) are showing no interest in making the league profitable. The 24% rollback offer is a 'White Elephant', and does nothing for the long term.

Dear RB, Condoms have been tried to separate procreation from sex, but they are not foolproof. Mind you, Bill Clinton tried to separate fellatio from sex. He tried to take issue with what 'sex' was defined as, and not even 'a wad of bills' could make Monica swallow that story!

Dear Cartman, Unions don't care if a company makes money. Unions often destroy the competitiveness of some businesses. Air Canada and the NHL are prime examples.Dear August1991, I would expect that the 'returners' would do the hassling, especially the ones who are not 'on the up and up'. The best way to get something through 'on the nod' is to make the transaction undesirable, so the clerk does anything to get rid of the 'annoying/annoyed' customer as fast as possible. If the person has a receipt, the clerk's butt is covered and then they can blame the policy.

Dear kimmy, I do not think that the 'length of IR time' should be a factor in disciplining offenders. I think some consideration should be given to 'how far from normal play' any attempt to injure actually was. A punch to the head while battling for a puck in the corner is rarely even called as a penalty, but if you skated over to the players bench and did it, there might be (and should be) disciplinary action.A few years ago Claude Lemieux (of the Colorado Avalanche) hit Chris Draper (of the Detroit Red Wings) from behind, and drove him face first into the boards. He crushed the side of Drapers face, and reconstructive surgery was needed. Should that surgery have been a mitigating factor in the disciplinary action? No, I don't believe so. Should he have gotten a lesser suspension if no surgery was needed? Again, no. Should the law have been involved? Absolutely not. Bertuzzi should have been suspended 1 year for his actions, minimum. But there is no way in hell it should have gone to court. I have seen plenty of things in the NHL (and indeed even in my own beer-league and shinny hockey) that would constitute assault. Heck, every slashing infraction is technically 'assault with a deadly weapon'. When I see crack-heads fighting on the street in front of my business, and I call the police, they tell me "There isn't much we can do unless one of them wants to press charges". Well, if Donald Brashear didn't seek to press charges against Marty McSorely, how can the police decide to do it for him? Same for Steve Moore vs. Todd Bertuzzi. If Moore chose to press charges, fine. It will set a precedent for the league, sure, but otherwise the laws are clearly defined by the NHL on the ice, and enforced by the refs. Disciplinary action is for the league, not the gov't.

Dear August1991, It is this way now. I know a fellow business owner who had hired a receptionist, and only found out later that the person was 'unable to do the job'. Given more than one task at a time, the person went to pieces and couldn't accomplish anything. The employer had to cover her butt, and couldn't let go of the receptionist immediately. A 'paper trail' has to be created, so after a series of written letters and reprimands, satisfying protocol, the person was eventually replaced. The employer's business had to suffer in the mean time, and I agreed with her that sometimes protocols such as these are unfair and unproductive for a business. Funny, I just read an article about people who do this as a 'scam'. Some people actually had wardrobes supplied by stores who refunded or exchanged clothes, no questions asked (provided a receipt was shown). These people would cut the tags off, wear the clothes, wash them, sew the tags back on and return it to the store. Wal-mart, especially, has been a victim of this, as they have a 1 year return policy on their goods. One could, theoretically, have 'new stuff' in perpetuity by simply keeping their receipt and exchanging the product every 364 days. (I know someone who did this with a video-game unit. I told him it was unfair to the rest of us consumers, and he said "Hey, screw them, they are a big company). However, it is the policy of the store and they must live with both the good and bad of said policies. If they garner more sales by having such a return policy, that is their gamble to take. Again, that is the way it is now. That is why I find maplesyrup's argument so one-sided. Maplesyrup thinks the employers can still have you beaten for asking for more gruel.

Dear eureka, I have read an awful lot about WWII, including El-Alamein. Yes, the Shermans and Lee-Grants were a factor, but not as much as Montgomery's brilliant leadership, air superiority, and several factors working against the Germans. These factors included Kesselring's failure to supply Rommel with petrol, (they only had enough after the 'First Battle of Alamein' to travel some 60 miles) and having Italian troops as allies. The formidable New Zealanders, and Scottish Highlanders were every bit as critical as Sheman tanks. In the 'second battle of Alamein', Rommel was sick with jaundice, and was replaced by Gen. Stumme, who died of a heart attack after his car was strafed by a low-flying Brit fighter (he fell out of the car, and the driver returned to base not realizing he lost the most important passenger on the continent! Stumme was found a few days later in the desert, dead of a heart attack). The Germans could do nothing but retreat, even after the return of Rommel, faced with complete Allied air superiority. Their retreat took the Germans all the way back to Tunisia, and after 'fighting to the last round' (as ordered), the remants of the Afrika Korps, then led by Maj Gen Graf Von Sponek(commanding the formidable 90th light division) asked to surrender to their (equally formidable)old foes, the New Zealanders. I have never heard of such a thing. The 'Warsaw Uprising' was in 1944, with the Russians only 13km from the city. Maj Gen Bor-Komorowski, had approval from the Polish Gov't-in-exile in London to lead the uprising. Instead of helping liberate Warsaw, the Russians held back, and many thousands of Jews were slaughtered. The question was, did Stalin deliberately hold back to see the uprising crushed? After all, he called the AK(Armija Krajowa) 'power-seeking criminals' (as they were loyal to the gov't-in-exile), and even refused British planes to re-fuel in Russia after they had dropped supplies off to the AK. Or perhaps you refer to the incident in 1943 when several mass graves were found in the Katyn Forest, near Smolensk, containing bound and executed Polish officers. The dead Polish officers, it was found, were from 1940, when the Russians controlled the area. It was assumed that these officers had 'refused communist indoctrination'. The Soviet Union denied any part in the massacre, but General Sikorski's gov't-in-exile in London asked the Red Cross to set up another inquiry. Apparently outraged, Stalin broke with Sikorski, and set up his own Polish puppet gov't. Source of most of this info:"The World At Arms" Reader's Digest Illustrated History of WWII

Dear maplesyrup, Getting fired would probably have been the best way this woman could have legitimized her claim, though I doubt that it would have happened. Plus, she would have gotten a whopping settlement. I am in favour of the 'three strikes' rules, official or unofficial. If this woman had objected three times,(maybe she did, maybe she didn't) I would say she would have a legitimate case. The first time, she could have said "Please don't call me that". The owner could have plead ignorance, and fair enough. The second time, the owner could have said "Sorry, I forgot" but the third time, that is just being an ass. To suggest 'this wouldn't happen in a union' is outright ridiculous. Unions need to be abolished ASAP. Their usefulness has bee out-lived. Gone are the days of company thugs beating employees with baseball bats for refusing to work overtime. Unions, especially gov't ones, are just 'job-security for the lazy', promotions are given for 'time served' and not ability, and are unrealistic in the business world.

Dear Hugo, Thou art witted.Perhaps Easter is a time for believing in the resurrection of all that we've destroyed and rendered extinct in our vain-glorious, selfish pursuits. As a 'Lapsed Catholic', I can only offer by sincere best wishes for all, regardless of anyone's particular devotion. It seems to me that the people on this forum are all 'good at heart', wishing for equality and prosperity for each and everyone. It is only the manner in which this could possibly be achieved that we disagree upon. PS. I was touched by an Angel once, but it made me feel 'icky'.

Whomever controls over 50% of supply controls the price. With (arguably) the largest reserve in the ground being in Iraq, and with the House of Saud already being on close terms with the Bush family, the linch-pin to controlling world pricing is controlling the oil in Iraq. Sure, the US gets oil from Venezuela and Canada and internally, but the price per barrel is set by OPEC, who, as of now, control the majority of production and therefore the price. Soon it will not be that way, and Iraq will be the major player, as Saudi Arabia is now.Further, Iraq had deals with TotalFinaElf of France, and now it is Halliburton. Iraq was going to go as far as only accepting the Euro, not the US dollar, and it would have precariously, and further, devalued the US greenback.

Dear Hugo, Actually the Germans had very comprehensive military training from youth through adulthood under the Nazi regime. They controlled all youth (and other)organizations , and the HJ was like the military Boy Scouts. Youth in the Reich received badges for marksmanship, glider proficiency (training for the Luftwaffe), the NSKK taught driving skills (relatively new at this stage) for future Panzer crews, you name it. Dear eureka, What??! German tanks were unparalleled throughout much of the war. The Churchill and the Cromwell were ok, the Matilda a sturdy workhorse, but no match for even the Panzer MKVI, let alone the Tiger. The King Tiger, although prone to breakdowns and a gas guzzler, was virtually impenetrable. The Russians only developed the T-34 in '42 (Which Heinz Guderian grudgingly admitted was 'the best tank in the world') Not exactly, but the Soviets had to move (physically dismantle and move!) the bulk of it's factories beyond the Urals. Only there, free from bombardment, did they begin to outproduce Germany. Um, when was this? 1939, or the Warsaw Uprising? Either way, the western allies could do nothing for Poland. Everybody was unprepared, even Germany. However, they crushed Russia at every turn until they hit Moscow, winter, and Hitler's bad calls.

Dear August1991, Don't worry, Big Business will never let Christmas fall. After all, Christmas shopping is the summum bonum of the 'free-enterprise/consumerist' system. People spend to spend, (buying extra gas to get to the mall and eating at the food court, travel tickets, etc.) to give away their purchases. In fact, every product or item one gives away probably cost an extra 25% above it's value to aquire, and one should be (theoretically) happy getting nothing in return! This time of year is the pinnacle, the acme, the zenith of the free enterprise system.

In a delicate situation like this, I would advocate carpet-bombing. I have to agree with Newfie Canadian, however, everyone has raised some very valid points.

Dear I miss Reagan, I would expect that the reason is most Canadians are sick of the rank hypocrisy of the above. When it comes to a 'holier than thou' attitude, there isn't anything more unholy than a US televangelist.

Dear Hugo, Indeed, and the US supplies almost never made it because the US refused advice from the UK on convoy systems and escorts. Finally, the US aquiesed and accepted some british mine-sweepers, but refused to be told how to use or deploy them. Technology kept one step ahead of the Germans though, with the advent of the 'Mark 24 mine' (a homing torpedo) and the Brits and Canadians honed their escort skills. Still, it was touch and go.You are right, probably the biggest blunder (apart from trying to eradicate the Jews, for Germany may have developed the Nuke way earlier) was Hitler postponing Barbarossa, and then diverting much needed forces from Moscow to try to take Stalingrad based on it's name alone.

Dear kimmy, The question is hypothetical of course, but perhaps we could say 50 Canadians imperilled in some African country. Suppose they were to be killed because they were Canadians, and suppose the US had the nearest forces. Or suppose Canadians went haywire, and the Francophones decided to kill every Anglophone(and were succeeding). My apologies, I don't recall reading your specific question. I do not think I could put a numbers ratio to such an event,(and I believe it would be crass to do so) it would really depend on the circumstance. For example, if the Nazi Party re-took Germany, and began to restoke the furnaces of Auschwitz, I think Canada should risk soldiers before the first Jew hit the gas chamber, let alone set a 'number ratio' of 85,000 to 1. I don't even think a 1-1 ratio is too much to ask if one is battling genocide. But again circumstances must dictate, for there must be "good and reasonable hopes of victory, however long and hard the road may be". (quote courtesy of Winston Churchill)

Dear August1991, Indeed, a common currency is anathema in Canada for the same reason. As to Anti-Americanism, we simply don't share the same set of values. There is much in common, I admit. Even the boys from South Park used Canada as their enemy in their movie 'Bigger, Longer and Uncut' because the very notion was so silly.

Dear kimmy, Very unlikely. In fact, the US has openly stated that NO nation shall be allowed to come close to them, militarily.As to the US military valuing the deaths of 85,000 Rwandans to the risking of the life of 1 American soldier, I wonder how Canadians rate?

Dear August1991, An interesting read. I suppose one could argue that 'extenuating circumstances' could be a defence involving any charges from such a bill, but how is it, as 'I Miss Reagan' asks, can a person be charged with murder of an unborn, when a doctor can't? Incidentally, I am pro-choice, but have a contempt for those who use abortion as birth-control.