[I Believe That There Is No God]

I Believe That There Is No God

Me too.

[What % of people never break the law?]

If you count going above the speed limit and other acts of similar scale as breaking the law, then I'd say that 0% of people never break the law. If we restrict the question to only include violations severe enough that, if caught, would warrant imprisonment, then I'd say it's probably a fairly substantial majority that never break the law.

[.]

Religious beliefs have no place in the workplace, period. Honestly, if a doctor refuses to perform a procedure (or issue medication) on religious grounds, then he's enough of a nut that I wouldn't want him performing any procedure on me, whether that particular procedure is one that he condones or not.

[Blair the new middle East envoy]

It is the utmost of paradoxes that Jews after the holocaust found themselves in a conflict with the British, the same country that defeated Nazism.

Not really a paradox... the British didn't exactly fight Germany just to save the Jews. In fact, the British severely restricted Jewish emigration to Palestine during the period of World War II, causing more Jews than would otherwise have been to remain trapped in places in Europe where they became victims of the Holocaust. Furthermore, the British policy of restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine continued after the end of the War until the establishment of Israel, and this caused additional hardship to large amounts of Holocaust survivors and other Jewish refugees. So it's not surprising that the Jews found themselves in conflict with the British over this issue.

Anyway it was mostly the Soviet Union that defeated Germany, the whole Western Front of the WWII was pretty minor in comparison. And the Russians hated the Jews for way longer, and more deeply, than the Germans did (they just never got the idea to try to completely whipe them out like Hitler did).

[The Climatic Blog War]

We as a species cannot stop it or slow it

What do you base that on? Were it sufficiently important, humanity could effect substantial change on the global climate. Methods of rapidly changing a planet's climate have been discussed and developed at great length, usually within the context of terraforming.

For example, if it was determined that the Earth was heading into an ice age (due to natural causes), it would be in our interest to prevent that from happening, even though it wasn't our fault. This could be easily achieved through methods including covering highly reflective surfaces of the Earth (i.e. the ice caps) with dark, highly light absorbing materials (i.e. vegetation), and vastly increased production of greenhouse gases (ones that are much more effective than CO2), and, if needed, more extreme methods. These are well within our technological capability, and could be implemented if there was fear of an impending ice age.

Similarly, if the consequences of global warming were deemed severe enough, technological solutions to prevent or reverse the warming could be developed. Besides just reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the extra heating effect that our civilization may have, if the global climate was becoming dangerously warm (whether due to natural or artificial causes), we could and would act to reverse that change. Highly absorbant areas of the Earth could be covered in more reflective materials, greenhouse gases could be removed from the atmosphere at a rapid rate artificially, and, if it were necessary, the level of solar radiation hitting the Earth could be reduced by the deployment of solar shades (in geosynchronous solar orbit, at an Earth-Sun Lagrange point) that would block some of the sun's light before it hit the Earth.

The above methods might be expensive, and some might need some further technological development before they are really realistic, but they do exist and are options if the need is sufficient.

So from my point of view, humanity as a civilization has the capability, or is close to having the capability, of controlling the Earth's overall climate. What that means is that rather than panicking about changes one way or the other from where the Earth is now, we need to objectively determine what would be the optimum temperature, based on a wide range of criteria such as:

- what global average temperature would make the most land available within a habitable temperature range (most likely a higher temperature than now)

- what global average temperature would cause the extinction of the least species (most likely as small a change from the current temperature as possible)

- what global average temperature would cause the least natural disasters and the least problems for populated areas that are susceptible to the effects of climate change (might be significantly lower than now)

- how difficult (expensive) a target temperature is to achieve and what methods would be required to achieve that temperature

- most likely a bunch of other criteria that I can't think of right now

and then work to implement that temperature. After everything is considered, that optimum global average temperature may be higher than what we have now, or it may be lower, but whatever it is, we have (or will have) the ability to implement that temperature. Basically, humanity has (or will have within the next few decades) the capability to "play God" with the Earth, and along with the capability comes the responsibility.

[Do smokers deserve healthcare from the province?]

You're kidding, right?

As Drea noted above, you stand at a bus stop with trucks, cars and indeed even buses driving by emitting exhaust, and you worry about a cigarette?

Actually, no, I am not kidding. Firstly, studies have shown that cigarettes produce much more harmful fumes than car engines. I can't find the link to the study I read right now, but here's an article comparing cigarette fumes to diesel emissions:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=12481

In summary, 1 cigarette produces roughly 10 times as much harmful particulate matter over time as a turbo diesel engine .

Secondly, a smoker standing on the sidewalk beside you is generally much closer to you than the cars passing by on the road, meaning that you inhale a larger portion of the fumes that are generated.

About 20% of the population smokes. They are a minority and it is easy for the majority of non-smokers to pick on them.

What's that supposed to mean? You can't seriously be trying to cast critiscism of smoking as a form of unfair discrimination. Smoking needs to be picked on, for many good reasons.

[Do smokers deserve healthcare from the province?]

The worst is people that smoke at bus stops and other locations where you have to stand around waiting for something in a small outside area. Even walking down the street in a city, you are forced to inhale second hand smoke. Smoking should just be banned in all locations except specially designated seperately ventilated facilities and one's personal residence.

[July War with up to FIVE enemies!]

I'm not trying to demonize the Palestinians, was just replying to buffycat's post. In my opinion, many Palestinians would indeed support terrorism against Israel. Of course, there are many reasons for why they hold that belief, including the propaganda and coercion by some of their leaders. But the fact remains that they did elect Hamas, and they did know that Hamas would mean more violence between Palestine and Israel.

I'm not saying that they are evil for doing so, or that they are thereby all terrorists, or anything like that, but to a certain extent, a people are very much responsible for the actions of their government, especially if it's a democratically elected government, as Hamas was. When terrorists are just a minor faction stirring up trouble, yeah, you can say that the rest of people there aren't responsible. But when it's the elected government, then those that elected it have some share of the responsibility. That's the burden of democracy. If the American people elected a president whose platform was "let's nuke every other country", and then the US went ahead and did that, would the average American voter be blameless?

As for the ceasefire not being held by Hamas, yeah, I pointed that out and agree with you.

[July War with up to FIVE enemies!]

Hamas held to a ceasefire for over 18 months

I didn't know allowing rockets to be constantly launched at Israel from the territory you control counts as "holding to a ceasefire" now.

All would be so easily solved if Israel would dismantle the settlements and get the heck out. Period.

Israel dismantled the settlements and got the heck out of Gaza. Was all solved? Nope. Was anything even slightly improved in any way? Nope. Violence (both against Israel and against Palestinians) increased, and the quality of life of Palestinians decreased. More Palestinians are living in poverty and dying now in Gaza then did while Israel was occupying the place.

Besides that - the one screaming for war seems to be the right wing extremists leading the land of Israel.

Yes, because having a charter that says that Israel must be whiped out doesn't constitute calling for war. The president of Iran saying Israel should be whiped off the map isn't screaming for war. Kidnapping soldiers at guardposts isn't provoking war. Nope, of course not. These are all peaceful actions of our friendly Arab/Muslim neighbours.

50 missles is nothing

Tell that to the person whose kids get killed by one of those missiles.

the average Palestinian - probably NOT either

The average Palestinian voted for Hamas, and thus knowingly voted for war, death, and suffering.

[Fear and Profit]

Of course companies make money off war. The same can be said of companies in most other countries. The US sells tons of weapons and other military equipment, as does Russia. Sure, being involved in instability provides an extra incentive to your nation's industry to develop new military systems, some of which can be sold internationally.

However, peace can be very lucrative too. The article even says that prior to 2000, Israel was one of the leaders in high tech and internet development and much of its economy was based on that. Today, that sector of the economy is booming worldwide once again, and Israel could is still a big player in it. Those Israeli companies that currently make military systems would have no shortage of other things to do if they weren't busy developing technology to enhance Israel's security. Peace would be just as good for the economy as continued violence, or perhaps better.

Honestly, the linked article does nothing but state the obvious: "companies in countries at war develop military systems and sell them". How is this unique to Israel, or an explanation of either the origin or the continuation of violence in the middle-east?

The USA made VAST amounts of money from WWII, boosting it from a stagnant and non-leading economy to the economic powerhouse of the world. Does that mean that the US government wanted WWII to keep going longer, for more American soldiers to die fighting in Europe or in the Pacific? No, they didn't, and they did everything they could to end the war quickly. The same is true for Israel. If Israel had a way to end the violence that constantly troubles it, you can bet that they'd choose the lives of the Israeli civilians and soldiers that are killed on a regular basis over a few million dollars of extra earnings by their defense contractors.

[Hundreds of Gaza refugees trapped at Israeli border]

Yup good post.

Also, to the post that says they elected Hamas because it was "their only choice" since Fatah was corrupt... it wasn't their only choice at all. Yes, Fatah was corrupt, and the Palestinians knew that. But they also knew that Hamas had a more aggressive stance towards Israel and that terrorism and the resulting Israeli retaliation would continue. They had a choice between corruption and terrorism/war, and they picked the second over the first. Sure, no one wants a corrupt government, but when the alternative is death, terrorism, prolonged occupation, and harsher retaliation, a government that's only corrupt begins to sound like quite an attractive option.

Now, I'm not trying to "demonize" Palestinians, but they did pick Hamas, and it wasn't their only choice. Basically, they knew what they were getting into when they voted for Hamas, and they knew the alternatives.

[How can you believe in religion?]

It gets ingrained into people (by their parents and community) when they are young, on such a deep level that for most people it's never possible to question it.

[Nuclear Power]

Oh, and as for the post about supply... true, if we limit ourselves to current technology and the Earth's supply of Uranium, it'd only last us like 30-50 years. But, we don't have to be limited to that. For one, the development of thorium fueled nuclear reactors is under way. That's just one option for alternate fuel for nuclear reactors, and if it becomes viable, one that will provide power for a longer period of time. Thorium is much more plentiful on Earth than uranium is. Secondly, there is plenty of uranium available elsewhere in the solar system, such as in asteroids. Within a few decades, it may become possible to extract resources there at an economically viable cost. And, of course, whatever we do for energy for now, fusion power will most likely become available around 2035-2050, with the promise of solving most of our energy problems.

[Nuclear Power]

I'm for nuclear power myself. Nuclear technology has advanced significantly since the first reactors were built, and people have learned from the mistakes and close calls. Any new technology is at first dangerous, but as it becomes better understood, safety increases. In fact, as technologies go, nuclear energy generation perhaps has one of the cleanest track records. Besides Chernobyl, which was caused by a mindboggling level of incompetence on the part of the plant operators, there have been no deaths or dangerous releases of materials from any other nuclear power plant (the three mile island incident never breached its containment).

Furthermore, like I said, technological advances promise ever safer nuclear reactors. For example, light water nuclear reactors (unlike heavy water ones) have an inherent tendency to slow down the reaction rate as temperature increases, thus greatly decreasing the chance of a meltdown. They also allow less fissile material to be in the core at any one time, in fact, generally below the amount that could cause a runaway chain reaction. In addition, more technology is currently being researched, to further improve safety and other aspects of nuclear reactors.

In terms of disposing of waste, for one, much of the waste can be put to use. For example, depleted uranium is used for its high density in certain types of munitions. Other types of reactors generate plutonium as a byproduct, which is used in space probes (and other applications) for radioisotope thermoelectric generators. And for the waste that does have to be disposed of, you just put it where no one is going to touch it for a few hundred years. Sure, it's a pain to get rid of the waste, but it's not impossible nor really dangerous.

As for the cost, it's the same as anything else, the more of them you build and streamline the process, the cheaper it will get. Currently, every single nuclear power plant is a big deal, and not only does it have to deal with the technical apsects of construction, the company also has to suffer the burden of protests and petitions by powerful anti-nuclear lobby groups. For applications where this is not the case, such as naval forces (i.e. aircraft carriers and submarines), nuclear technology has proven to be the most economical and viable way to provide power. The same could be true for civilian applications if there was a higher level of acceptance of nuclear technology.

[Was the Japanese internment wrong?]

All human beings are equal. All of us. You, me and that asshat next door are all equals. To believe otherwise is bigotry plain and simple.

I dunno if you can really say that ALL human beings are equal. For sure, to deem the value of one human being as higher or lower than another due to religion or ethnicity is unacceptable, however, there are other factors which must be considered.

For example, is a scientist that's found the cure to cancer and on his way to finding the cure to another disease, resulting in the prevention of millions of deaths, of equal value as a bum that's never contributed anything to society and most likely never will? Is an old man with a terminal illness with a few months left to live of equal value as a child with a full lifetime of potential ahead? Is the life of a serial murderer of equal value as that of a law abiding citizen? Sure, in some ideal world, it is best to grant equal rights to everyone, but when push comes to shove, you often have to make hard choices. If you're in a situation where you have to pick which lives and which dies (for whatever reason), it quickly becomes apparent that the value of some individuals is greater than that of others, and that they are therefore not equal.

[Was the Japanese internment wrong?]

When you have an all out war like that, you do everything you have to and everything you can think of. In the current limited wars, internment like that would of course be unjustifiable, but at the time of the 2nd world war, there was the very real possibility that one leaked secret or betrayal could have led to a chain of events causing hugely increased casualties or even defeat of Allied forces. When so much is at stake, you do anything you have to to survive and to win.

Of course it can be argued that the method of internment should have been more fair and things should have been returned more equitably after the War, but the principle of detaining (or at least thoroughly investigating and selectively detaining) persons originating from a country that you are in an all out war with can't be completely ruled out.

[Peace in Occupied Palestine]

Show me a pluralistic Muslim country? There isn't one.

Turkey.

I bet a Kurd or an Armenian wouldn't agree with you on that one.

[Do smokers deserve healthcare from the province?]

Smokers already pay more for healthcare

Not by enough.

[Peace in Occupied Palestine]

If you want to claim something is against the law, you can at least show the law that you suppose that it is in violation of. Have you or have you not actually read the law which you claim that Israel is violating? Do you or do you not have a link to a source that lists this law?

[Peace in Occupied Palestine]

Are you disputing it in fact, or only in principle?

Not disputing anything, I'm asking you to present the passage of international law that you are claiming that Israel is violating. Have you read this law first hand for yourself? If so, I would like you to provide the relevant section, with a link to a source.

[Peace in Occupied Palestine]

If we start at the end of Ottoman rule and the begining of the British protectorate, it is difficult to see exactly what ethical premise allowed for the establishment of Israel on Palestinian lands at all. But if you accept that the world community had the authority to permit the establishment of Israel, then you must logically accept that it's proposed disposition of the remaining lands is authoritative too.

Contrary to popular belief, Israel wasn't "established" by either Britain or the "world community". There was a UN partition plan, to split the area between a Jewish and an Arab state. Though the Jews were less than completely happy with the plan, they accepted it, but the Arabs rejected the plan, and invaded Israel. During this conflict, the 1948 war, Israel succesfully defended itself against attack by Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Yemen, and other non-national factions. The results of the conflict and subsequent negotiations are what "established" Israel, not the failed UN partition plan.

The reason is that the actions of the states of Jordan or Egypt are not attachable to the Palestinian people.

Actually, yes, they are. The Arabs in Gaza, under the jurisdiction of Egypt, participated in the attacks against Israel, as did the Arabs in the West Bank, under the jurisdiction of Jordan. Furthermore, the issue isn't to what state(s) you can "attach" the actions of the Palestinian people, but rather which state(s) wronged the Palestinian people.

I would say that the loss (by Jordan) of the West Bank land on which these people lived, and subsequent massacre of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and expulsion of Palestinian refugees was a bigger wrong to them than anything Israel has done. At the time, Jordan was accused of Genocide of the Palestinian people and the death of ~20,000 Palestinians, but since then this has mostly been forgotten and all the Palestinian problems blamed on Israel.

[Peace in Occupied Palestine]

1) international law as it stand is the creation of the states of the world

Which states? Furthermore, if you wish to debate law, please quote or provide a link to the particular law that you are attempting to invoke.

[Peace in Occupied Palestine]

Great post, Rue.

[Peace in Occupied Palestine]

Ummm, wasn't it rather Israel's incursion into Lebanon in search of their captured soldier that led to that tragic conflict? That's the sequence of events I observed in the media.

Umm.. that soldier didn't just randomly become captured by thin air you know. There was a chain of events:

First: Israel pulls out of Lebanon

Next: Hezbollah, no longer kept in check by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, gains more recruits and obtains more weapons, and increases in confidence

Next: Hezbollah does a raid inside Israel, killing several soldiers and capturing two

Next: Israel retaliates, seeking to dismantle or at least damage Hezbollah, which has demonstrated itself as a violent threat, and to hopefully find its missing soldiers

Saying that the conflict was "because of Israel's incursion" is an extreme fallacy. It's equally ridiculous as saying that World War II was because the US attacked Japanese possessions in the Pacific. Israel's incursion WAS the confrontation, it wasn't the cause of the confrontation.

As for your question about law, I already answered. Unjust or unrealistic law should be changed. It would not be being changed "for Israel", because the issue of unjust or unrealistic international law applies to all countries. If there is a law that states that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is unlawful, then that same law should also state that the Canadian occupation of First Nations lands is unlawful, for example. Does that mean Canada should cede all lands that natives might happen to demand? International law needs to be held to a certain standard of realism if it is to be applied, and where it fails to be realistic it has to be changed. There is nothing about that statement which is specific to Israel.

[Peace in Occupied Palestine]

I fail to see how that makes it necessary to continue doing the very thing that is prompting the attacks i.e. occupy Palestine.

Every decrease in the extent of occupation so far has resulted in more rocket attacks, not less. For example, the pullout from Lebanon ended up with Hezbollah obtaining thousands huge amounts of armaments and becoming more aggressive against Israel, which resulted in a tragic conflict last summer. Similarly, Israel's pullout from Gaza has only increased the amount of rockets being fired at Israel from that region. It is quite understandable why Israel would be reluctant to retract the occupation any further without some method to insure that attacks against it don't increase yet again.

Also, perhaps you would like to reply to the issue of why you believe it's Israel that owes these people any land when in fact it was Jordan and Egypt that used that land to attack Israel, then lost that land in the ensuing conflict, and then refused to allow the people living on that land (the Jordanian and Egyptian Arabs that are now commonly called Palestinians) from coming within their new borders. If anyone has unjustly wronged the people of Palestine and owes them anything, it is Jordan and Egypt.