WIP

If it's a question of radiation effects, we could also be "pinged" by internal sources such as radioactive potassium (K40) in the blood, which can cause fluctuations in neuro-electric currents. Our "thought system" is otherwise known as the brain, and if we could communicate telepathically with other people, by exchanging weak electric currents, we should also be able to communicate with plants and animals and electric appliances! Because of the fact that psi phenomena is still unproven after 150 years, and the psychics who claim awareness of the thoughts of others (both living and dead) have to resort to deception and outright fraud to impress their audiences, it should reinforce the conclusion that thought is a function of the brain, and does not extend beyond the boundaries of our physical bodies. The ones described so far, are not mystic events, but are within the realm of force relationships that are studied by physicists and neurologists. I wouldn't mind having a clear definition of "true nature" -- is there any proof that such a concept of true nature actually exists? Because we are going to change throughout our lives, as we are impacted by environmental factors, regardless of what parents or other caregivers did or did not do to us. Conformity and socialization of children according to community standards is something I would offer as part of true human nature, since every study of hunter/gatherer societies reveals that they expect sons and daughters to grow up and follow a rigid set of rules and behaviours -- there is no tolerance for anarchy and nonconformity among primitive societies that have to struggle for food and shelter! The problem with contending that some sort of mental exercise you refer to as suppressing the ego, and I assume this is similar to what many Buddhist-influenced practitioners would call "living in the now" or "becoming fully present in the moment," is that these techniques may not be seem relevant or meaningful to many people! For instance, because of the fact that our brains determine our mental states, there are many people who have major depressive disorders which cannot be alleviated just by applying psychological therapies. Depression can be caused by physical factors that have nothing to do with childhood traumas -- that's why these disorders have a high level of heritability. One common factor is that many people with depression have low serotonin levels, and may not feel any better listening to someone tell them to suppress the ego and develop mindfulness of the present! It is also worth noting that - since you're discussing the source of love and joy - that these feelings correlate with the neurochemical - oxytocin ; if your method of developing feelings of love and joy, you are stimulating the production of oxytocin in the hypothalamus. On the flipside, if you are injected with oxytocin, or take a drug that stimulates production of oxytocin (like MDMA/Ecstasy), you will start feeling love and joy without having made any effort to achieve this positive state of mind! More evidence that mental states affect neurochemistry and vice versa; and love, like other emotions and properties of mind - do not exist separately from brain activity! Par of this could be summed up as a classic definition for pantheism -- basically that the creator and creation are one and the same, and the universe should be regarded as a single conscious entity, but part 3 is obsolete since discoveries made in cosmology over the last 15 years have revealed that our universe will continue expanding at continually increasing rate of acceleration, until it either reaches a point where it will just disintegrate and vanish without a trace, or the universe will die a heat-death after 1000 billion years or so. The philosophical implications of new findings in cosmology are that our universe has a beginning and an end. Our universe is going to die, so if God is the Universe, the God of this universe is not immortal! Is He aware of his eventual mortality? There are a number of multiple universe theories, but that won't save anything that is of this universe, whether its advanced lifeforms or some pantheistic god of the universe.

Here's a thought: people shouldn't throw stones when they live in glass houses! If you want to argue that Russia has no legitimate interests in neighbouring states because the past genocides, we can go back even further to the massacres of natives caused by wars, ethnic cleansing and disease brought on by the Indian Wars that were fought in the interests of a policy of Manifest Destiny. Most of that estimated 28 million who died after the Bolshevik Revolution, died as a result of disease and ethnic cleansing, not extermination camps -- same as the Indian Wars! As for the here and now, if you're curious about why even most U.S. allies have been trying to put as much distance between themselves and America, as possible since 9/11, it's because U.S. foreign policy under the Bush Administration has lost all moral authority to claim the high ground on the international scene. It's ironic to hear Dubya, McCain and Condi declaring that Russia has no right to invade a sovereign nation, after going it alone to invade Iraq for regime change, and supporting the declaration of independence by breakaway enclaves like Kosovo and Montenegro from Serbia. The battlelines are being formed along the lines of self-interest by the rest of the world; nations with great animosity towards the Russians (like Poland) will go along with any moves against Russia as long as they are not dependent on Russian natural gas (like Germany), but no one honestly believes the U.S. has the moral high ground.

Does Canada lack a decent Conservative Party? You bet we do! I can't believe I actually supported this Reform/Alliance party that ended up dissolving the stodgy old federal P.C. Party. I agreed with "The West Wants In" and even the Triple E Senate, and other Western initiatives, because it became obvious that the old party and the division of seats in Parliament unfairly rewards Quebec and the Maritimes, and did not provide enough seats for Western provinces that are growing in size --- but, as they say, be careful what you ask for! Now, with this Harper Government in charge, the whole country is being governed according to Alberta's interests, especially when it comes to pushing these dirty oilsands projects!

Well, if I'm going to take this BS at face value, I would insist that those who are claiming to want to be my friends not get me involved in their proxy wars! Do you realize that if Georgia had already been accepted in their goal of joining NATO, the U.S. and other NATO allies would be obligated by treaty to defend them from the Russians? I wanted to give this story a little rest, to see if any new information would start trickling out about why the president of Georgia picked last week's opening of the Olympics, as the launch for an invasion of South Ossetia -- I am especially curious of what the estimated 1000 U.S. military advisers were doing; was the U.S. govt. informed that Georgia would start the war? So far, it seems there are a few people who guessed when the invasion would happen: Geoff Smith, a Kiev-based analyst for Renaissance Capital investment bank, had anticipated the Georgian move with uncanny prescience in an e-mail two days earlier to a fellow strategist..............Explaining his reasoning, the former journalist said the upcoming presidential election in the United States could have played a role in Saakashvili's decision to send troops into South Ossetia. "Certainly the next White House will not be as supportive of Saakashvili as this one and so if Saakashvili wanted to reunite Georgia he really had to do it this year and he was probably hoping the Olympic Games gave him the right cover," he said. That last comment says it all! Certainly, if John McCain becomes president, it will be Bush III, especially on foreign policy. But this Saakashvili guy must have been worried that an Obama presidency would be less supportive of his quest to reunite his tiny nation by force! And once again, in this world where national borders are meaningless (let alone, Geneva Convention rules), if the West can decide that Bosnia and Kosovo deserve independence, there is nothing in international law standing in the way of South Ossetians and Abkhazia, having their own little nations, since they were never ruled by Georgia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The relationship of Ossetia and Georgia is more like China and Taiwan, than it is to the Southern Confederacy!

I got to say that first off, I don't buy the concept that we are 'blank slates' defined by the environmental factors that we have been exposed to during our lives. We are social creatures, and sure, we are going to imitate the examples set for us by parents, elders, and even peers during our youth; but we are also supposed to be capable of reason and rational thought, and should be able to evaluate the beliefs we have inherited, and change or get rid of beliefs or customs that are in error, or harmful. I read most of the posts, and I still come away thinking that the talk of 'ego' and 'the self' is just playing with words, and is based solely on subjective impressions of what people believe about the nature of their minds. It doesn't appear to relate to anything that can be studied in any sort of empirical, objective manner, and doesn't consider the fact that studies of brain function (especially dysfunctions) would indicate that our sense of possessing an integrated self, or ego, or whatever you want to call it, is an illusion, or at least a perception of ourselves that is artificially constructed so we can function in an organized manner when dealing with the outside world. Proof of this can be found in the studies I mentioned previously about the two hemispheres of the Neocortex: "experiments have found that each hemisphere creates a separate consciousness, functioning independently of the other." -- Born To Believe p.67, Andrew Newberg & Mark Waldman. The implications of these studies are that we have two separate 'selfs' or 'egos' that we are consciously unaware of because our brain is generating a cognitive picture of possessing an integrated mind. At the level of neurons, each neuron acts independently when deciding which bits of information to pass on through the synapses. When communicating information to other neurons, it can change the message slightly, by dropping bits of information, or adding new bits of information; in that sense, each one of our estimated 100 billion neurons has a mind of its own, and yet they generate an emergent sense of consciousness, that believes it is not limited by the physical constrictions of brain function! (also from p. 67 of Born To Believe). To me, this says that when we study the mind as a separate artifact, we are studying an image, and not something that has a separate, supernatural existence of its own. And the reason they connect the mind with brain function is because there is no evidence that the mind continues on in any form separate from the brain. Everything that impairs brain function, also disables the mind. Brain damage can cause dementia, psychosis, depression and many other maladies that impair or alter mental function. The interconnections of particles at the quantum level doesn't have a whole lot to do with brain function! Quantum mechanics effects such as the Uncertainty Principle are intangible and irrelevant at the macroscopic level. And neurons and synapses are too large to be affected by quantum uncertainty or quantum entanglement. If they were, our brains probably would freeze up, and be unable to function -- since that seems to be happening with experiments trying to design quantum computer processing chips that can take advantage of that uncertainty when particle wave-functions collapse to provide more options than the on/off gate switches currently available in computer technology. But the researchers haven't figured out how to deal with quantum entanglement -- which can allow a mass of particles to assume the same quantum state and act in unison. This effect is useful for things like lasers, but it might be a deal-breaker for making quantum computers. Anyway, fortunately for us, our brains work at a macroscopic level, and our neurons are not subject to entanglement. Clairvoyance, telepathy, telekenesis -- this is a whole set of beliefs that has no evidence to support it, and is surrounded by con artists who use magic tricks to deceive people. If there was anything behind psychic phenomena, one psychic at least, would have passed the testing that James Randi established, and collected the million dollar prize. All of the most famous charlatans like Sylvia Brown or Uri Gellar, ducked the challenge rather than collect a million dollars! I don't know what to add to this, except that it all sounds like new age quackery; but if it can be used to develop a system that can change attitudes and improve outlook on life, then I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot if it has anything to do with the real world.

I was waiting for you to explain what you mean by 'Ego', and it still seems that you have decided that you can understand how your mind functions. In the last year or so, I've found more informative studies of consciousness and the mind by reading books on neuroscience -- especially where brain function can be correlated with the function of the mind -- and one point that keeps coming forward in books by psychologists and neuroscience investigators such as Andrew Newberg, Michael Gazzaniga and Robert Burton, is that our sense of ego, or even having a continuous conscious self is for all intents and purposes an illusion generated by brain function (likely to give us the ability to function in our everyday world). Proof that the mind is not what it seems to us has been known for years before brain-scanning machines were invented! The study of people with brain disorders or brain damage, indicates that physical damage to the brain, also damages the 'mind'. Researchers have studied the role of brain damage on personality, and other facets of mind ever since a railway worker named Phineas Gage survived an accident where a railway spike went through his head. People with severe epilepsy, who have had the hemispheres of the cerebral cortex separated by an operation, start to function as if they have two separate minds inside their heads when given tests that try to isolate each hemisphere. And people with odd brain disorders such as Cotard's Syndrome will insist that they are dead regardless of whatever evidence is offered to prove that they are alive! If you recall the bizarre case of former SCTV comedian Tony Rosato -- he tried to attack his wife and daughter, and was locked up in a maximum security psychiatric facility when he insisted that they were not his real family, but were instead imposters. Rosato could be the most famous person with Capgras Syndrome, a delusion that is caused by either damage to an area of visual cortex that provides our ability for facial recognition, or is a miscommunication with the amygdala - which normally sends an emotional response back to the cortex to provide the sense of familiarity or emotional connection with the face that is observed. All of these various disorders that impair memory, sense of awareness, and change personality, demonstrate that the mind is what the brain does! Brain researchers are divided between Ego theorists - who believe that there is conscious, continuous ego generated by brain function, and the Bundle theorists - who contend that the fruitless search for a 'Cartesian Theater' that acts as a master control of conscious brain function, indicates that the Ego is for all intents and purposes, an illusion generated by connecting conscious activity with short-term memory. The concept of Bundle Theory of Mind has been around since philosopher David Hume made this proposition centuries ago, and it is even curiously similar to the Buddhist doctrine of 'Anatta' or 'No self'. From the direction brain research is going, I'm inclined to side with the bundle theorists; after all, can we really say we are the same persons we were yesterday, a year ago, 20 years ago, or even one minute ago? All we know is that we have memories in our long-term memory that are continually updated and re-interpreted. One psychologist I've read recently, Andrew Newberg, seems to have the best picture of what consciousness is all about -- that the brain generates perceptual maps of the external world, and brain function as well. So when we try to go inside and have a mystical experience, we are still limited by the cognitive map generated by our brains, which is providing us with a picture of our inner minds that may be no more representative of the real terrain than the visual maps generated in the visual cortex from a narrow band of wavelengths of electromagnetic energy. I have no problem with books you referenced by Eckard Tolle, and for all I know, they may be helpful for you and others. If that's the case, then it doesn't matter whether they are describing anything real or not! But for myself, whenever I start reading new age books about the mind or mysticism, I feel that there is nothing tangible in what they are offering, and they do not really understand the mind, the universe and all of the other things they claim to have knowledge about.

I know that! I was referring to how idiotic it was to try to hide under a desk from the H-bomb. In a world armed with nuclear weapons, it's stupid to be trying to set up a foreign policy around fighting resource wars! Any conflict that can be avoided, should be.

Besides the obvious benefits of the pipeline, would that foreign investment that has fueled 10% annual growth also include the investments in military aid?

Did I say that? I just thought that it was time for the Neocons and American Exceptionalists to consider for once, that other regions of the World have their own regional interests! If you were a Russian, you would agree with the majority of Russians that the U.S. and Western Europe has been working a strategy of carving out former Soviet territories to exploit their oil and other national resources, and trying to surround Russia with hostile states armed with American missiles. Sometimes the picture looks different when you're standing in a different spot in the room! Everyone who criticizes U.S. foreign policy (and yes, the Clinton Admin. was practicing the same strategy on a more limited scale) is immediately charged as being anti-American. This should make one consider the fascist nature of extreme nationalistic thinking which responds to criticism with charges of anti-Americanism!

?????? I'll just assume that you're not old enough to remember the 'duck and cover' drills! When I was in grade 1, we were taught to hide under our desks when we heard an air raid siren. I think the drills were scrapped by the mid-60's; and nobody seemed to pay attention to the air raid sirens after that time!

You seem to be referring to something called the Georgia Train and Equip Program, and you're also assuming that this is the only military aid provided by the U.S. -- this does explain why Georgia was motivated to send 2000 soldiers to Iraq -- the Coalition of The Willing appears more and more to be the Coalition of the Obligated! Georgia is a tiny, impoverished nation of 4.5 million which now finances a military budget of 560 million U.S. dollars per year - and that doesn't include gifts, such as uniforms and body armour donated by the U.S. If all of the off-budget programs and black box projects are included, it would provide a significant amount to explain how they are financing a significant military buildup for a small nation. And what exactly has Condi been doing during this time? Isn't she the one who speaks fluent Russian, and began her State Dept. training as a Soviet analyst? Did she, or anyone else in the Bush Whitehouse notice that the Georgians were building their new military bases right next to the disputed territories of Abkhazia and Ossetia? If not, they were once again asleep at the wheel!

Well, many of us who started school back in the good old days of the Cold War, when we were taught to hide under our wooden desks in case of nuclear attack, would rather not have to breath new life into NATO in the first place! We could still end up with a full-scale nuclear war - that everyone thinks we dodged at the collapse of the Soviet Union - when policies are made by people who act before thinking through the consequences. And here's a good place to start! A little ferreting around, reveals that the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia was encouraged by the Bush Administration, who were either stupider than usual, or deliberately financed Georgia's military buildup, knowing full well that it would be used for the purpose of invading territories that were de facto independent since the fall of the Soviet Union: According to Cheterian, the Georgian defence ministry announced in early May 2007 that it will sharply increase its current defence budget, from 513 to 957 million lari ($304m to $567m). This escalation follows an already impressive rise in defense spending since the "Rose revolution." This means that since the arrival to power of Mikheil Saakashvili, defence spending has continued on an upward spiral. Georgia's military plans have caused alarm among diplomats and others in the international community who prefer a peaceful coexistence of the various ethnic groups who inhabit the Caucasus region. " - The fact that the two new barracks are close to the conflict-zones of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has led to concerns among both the de-facto governments of those two regions and the international community that seeks a peaceful resolution to these conflicts," explains Vicken Cheterian. As it stands now, the U.S. is not going to have the luxury of exercising power in the Caucasus, regardless of what's on the wish list! It's a moot point to begin with! If the U.S. had the upper hand right now, they would have sent military assistance, or threatened military action against the Russians. They haven't because it's not an option; and they never should have encouraged the President of Georgia to believe that he had U.S. backing to forcibly retake the breadaway territories! If the pipeline - which is the source of all this intrigue - had been run along the shortest route, it would have run through Russia, and the Russians likely would have been happy with a piece of the action! And, let's not forget, that the problem of securing future sources of oil - that motivated the Bush Admin. to make an aggressive move into former Soviet territories - could have served as a notice to invest the money in developing alternative sources of energy, instead of using the military to try to secure more oil!

Yes, never let the facts get in the way of a good argument: Georgia launched the major offensive to regain control over South Ossetia overnight Friday. Lavrov told reporters Saturday that some 1,500 people had been killed in South Ossetia since Friday, with the death toll rising. The figures could not be independently confirmed. But residents of the South Ossentian provincial capital Tskhinvali who survived the bombardment by hiding in basements and later fled the city estimated that hundreds of civilians had died. They said bodies were lying everywhere. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hV2N6fV...IdaZ4QD92FDLSG0

After about 15 years living in a small village and then moving back into a medium sized city about 7 years ago, I noticed that the quaint, small town atmosphere comes with a price -- everyone knows your business! There's a kind of enforced conformity that people feel in small towns that doesn't tolerate unconventional beliefs and attitudes. My son was ostracized when he was 11, and told friends that he didn't believe in God. Nothing was said to us, but it became obvious real fast that other parents decided to try to keep their children away from our kids. They're older now, but a similar boycott wouldn't be possible where we're living now. City life has its downside: we don't dare step outside without locking the doors, three cars have been stolen on my street in the past year, and you have to keep alert when you're out on the streets at night. But, on the other hand, that impersonal, unfriendly atmosphere that people complain about, gives back a degree of personal freedom. I like having this anonymity back, and not having to deal with people that I don't need to know anyway!

Right, but some people never want to let the facts get in the way of a good argument! As has been pointed out already, the Republic of Georgia is part of the Bush Administration's naked ambition of becoming the controlling force in all of the former Soviet Republics. including the ones in Eastern Europe, Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc. -- encircling Russia with Nato allies armed with missiles, and ofcourse getting oil contracts and pipelines built to bring their oil to Western markets. Looking at the big picture, I don't blame the Russians for trying to project power and control countries that were formerly independent in name only during the Soviet Era. And it's not surprising that the usual suspects here who determine what's good or bad by how it affects U.S. interests, are condemning Russia for invading Georgia, in spite of the undisputed fact that the Georgians started the war by bombing civilians (including Russians) living in Ossetia. And it should be noted that Russia has a case for promoting the independence movements in breakaway regions of Georgia and other republics because Nato set the precedent by supporting the breakup of Yugoslavia, followed by the breakup of Serbia, by supporting Kosovo's independence. And since the U.S. is tied up with Iraq and Afghanistan, they have nothing to offer, in the way of military assistance to their Georgian allies. Other allies who are trying to join Nato and the E.E.C., may be thinking that if they side with the West against Russia, they're on their own if a shooting war starts!

Well, maybe I should have looked further into his background, than the brief profiles listed on NPR and C.F.I. web pages; but his divinity degree does explain his fuzzy, open-ended theology that doesn't even define terms like 'God', 'faith', 'soul' etc. And Hedges wades into this debate and criticizes atheistic writers like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, for demanding that no beliefs should be beyond criticism, with claims that their arguments only apply to a tiny minority of extremist Muslims and Christians -- and when I try to discover what Chris Hedges' version of Christianity is, I find that he is off the chart, and the only church where he would find anyone who shared his version of Christian faith would be the pious atheists that inhabit some Unitarian churches; so what yardstick is he using to distinguish between moderates and extremists: "God is not an anthropomorphic deity; He is just “the name we give to our belief that life has meaning.” So, Chris Hedges is another liberal spokesman who greatly exaggerates the segment of the population he is speaking for, while claiming to speak for the majority of Christians. I don't put a lot of stock in arguments from authority (something I notice your pet, Reza Aslan is fond of btw). The book reviewers like to carp about his lack of credentials, but if you go on Youtube, you might notice that Hitchens can hold his own with anyone who wants to debate him on religion! What I find disturbing is that the critics who want Harris and Hitchens to stop talking (especially about Islam) don't have a coherent message -- on one hand we are told that religious dogma is always peaceful and beneficial, and only causes harm when it is subverted or misapplied; but then we are told that by speaking out, H & H are encouraging extremism! So, especially when dealing with the Muslim World, we are told we must only say wonderful things about them and their religion, or else they may start rioting in the streets! No, they want so-called progressive Muslims to define "progress" and where they stand on these issues. Most of the self-proclaimed moderate spokesmen do not believe in equivalent Western moderations like 'separation of church and state,' for example. They hmm and haw when asked if apostasy should be a crime! Are the moderates going to change the cult-like stranglehold that religious authorities have in Muslim-majority nations? To begin with, there is no such thing as a "brand of atheism." Atheism means a lack of belief in a supernatural world, and from there, you can go off in all directions forming a naturalistic philosophy. Many humanists who were early supporters of Marxism, like George Orwell, became disillusioned when they understood that Marxist theory made claims that were given unchallengeable authority and did not support the rights of the individual. Orwell became one of the best critical analysts of Marxism, and repudiated every aspect of it; on the other hand, the "moderate" Muslims do a lot of fudging about what they believe in, and how we are supposed to distinguish them from the extremists. So far, all we get is a condemnation of terrorism against civilians; but what about other contentious issues? Reza Aslan expects us all to be silent, while the reformation process in the Muslim World apparently goes on in secret! The Vancouver imam was using the Quran as his authority for his disparaging remarks, and Elmasry carries a lot of weight, since he is in charge of the Canadian Islamic Congress -- the group that is trying to become the dominant organization of Muslims across Canada. You do realize that the numbers wouldn't sound so good if you consider that the flipside would be that 20% of American Muslims DO NOT reject suicide attacks! According to these numbers, from a Pew survey, 60% of Jordanians, 55% of Egyptians, 25% of Pakistanis believe that it can be justified. Even where the majority are against suicide bombing, that still leaves a large base of support! Did I say that? You're still dodging the issue that the prospect of retribution keeps most crimes, especially ones that are difficult to carry out, like assassination, to a minimum. Anyone who is willing to die in order to kill others, is going to be a more difficult enemy to deal with than one who is rational enough to weigh the consequences of his actions. Can you motivate someone to be a suicide bomber without convincing them that they will survive bodily death and be rewarded for their actions in heaven? This is the same idiotic reasoning that is allowing Muslims to push anti-blasphemy laws in Europe! You say critics must remain silent so as not to enrage peaceful Muslims. I say that all Muslims, even these self-styled moderates that you are so fond of, should be aware of other opinions and evidence that challenges their dogma. A lot of fundamentalist Christians have wet dreams about having this sort of strength through intimidation to protect their religious dogmas from being challenged. Fundamentalists rail against the modernists and liberals who have applied higher criticism of the Bible. There are many textual and linguistic scholars who make a valid case that the Quran was originally written in Aramaic (since there wasn't a written form of Arabic at the time), but there is no equivalent of higher criticism in Islam, despite all your talk about moderates, because any Islamic scholar who dares to say these things, ends up charged with blasphemy, and no prominent Western scholars are willing to end up like Theo Van Gogh!

Do you know who Chris Hedges is? Or are you just playing dumb, like you are doing on that other thread, making excuses for Muslim extremists! Here's the guts of Chris Hedges' position that religion and belief in God cannot be blamed for violence: Real religion has nothing to do with superstition, irrational beliefs, or tribalism. God is not an anthropomorphic deity; He is just “the name we give to our belief that life has meaning.” http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200705...ve_in_atheists/ Now, doesn't that strike you as a little arrogant and presumptuous, for a reporter, who has no training in the study of religion, philosophy, or theology, to start making sweeping statements about what constitutes "real religion?" For Chris Hedges, "God is not an anthropomorphic deity." Well, what sort of God does Chris Hedges believe in anyway? It's certainly not the 'anthropomorphic' god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, so what right does he have to claim any sort of intellectual authority to speak on behalf of 'moderate' religions? "He is just “the name we give to our belief that life has meaning.” -- is not going to fly very far with even the most liberal Christians, let alone Muslims or Jews! To me, it seems that this sort of religious moderate doesn't believe in anything supernatural any more than I do; he just believes in belief! There is a patronizing aspect of this notion that the masses have to believe in divine purpose and eternal life or they will conclude life has no meaning. There are a lot of atheistic scientists and academics who share this outlook, and it's more likely that Hedges is an atheist who also believes that the real world may be too harsh for most people, so they need religion -- than it is that he actually practices any sort of Christianity. During an interview on Point Of Inquiry, host D.J. Grothe tried to get Hedges to elaborate a little on what his own religious beliefs are, and how they correlate with the majority of believers, let alone fundamentalists -- and as usual, it was like nailing jello to a wall. But in the interview, Hedges is sure that he doesn't believe in the concept of moral progress; which dismisses advances made in society, like ending slavery, or the scientific advances made in medicine and technology, that have improved the quality of life. Hedges says that 'he finds people who put their faith in science and reason to be as delusional as Christian fundamentalists place in miracles and angels.' As for that comparison, I haven't looked for polling numbers, but offhand I'd be willing to bet that a clear majority of Christians believe in miracles and angels! So once again, what sort of 'moderate' is this guy, and how much does his beliefs coincide with the majority he is claiming to represent? No, they do not ignore dangerous secular movements! That is a false charge that gets continually tossed up (like Hitler was an atheist), no matter how many times they are refuted. It's usually little more than an attempt to change the subject, whenever anyone criticizes the growth of Islamism or harms done by the Vatican. But the preachers and other religious critics like to lump every secular movement together, and Hitchens or Harris have a right to point out that Communism was not a humanist philosophy, since it did not value individual rights and freedoms, and made a claim to possessing perfect knowledge of human needs and how to remedy them. Out of the other side of their mouths, the same critics criticize humanism for not having objective standards and continually revising and updating their philosophy. And one way to play games with this issue is to redefine the very word 'civilian'. You could say that no Israeli is a civilian, since they have a mandatory draft, and everyone has to serve in the army - as C.I.C. president, Mohammed Elmasry did, or you could quote the Quran and say they are just decendents of apes and pigs, like this sheik who runs a Vancouver mosque: Muslim leaders clarify anti-Semitic remarks http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/10/25/...ers_041025.htmlMuslim leaders clarify anti-Semitic remarks Got any polling data to back that up? Now since that answer was supposed to address the issue of highly motivated warriors who are willing to die for a cause, it avoids the question entirely! Stalin's and Mao's mass killings were done by starvation, not by holy warriors on a suicide mission! The question I want answered is how do you motivate someone to sacrifice his or her own life for the purpose of killing others, unless that you can convince him that he's not really going to be dead, and will instead have a better life than he would have if he failed to carry out the mission? And you're going to pretend it all began with Adolph Hitler? Pop quiz, who wrote the following -- Adolph Hitler or Martin Luther? What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? ...Let me give you my honest advice. First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire. ...Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. ...Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books. ...Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more. ...Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden. ...Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. ...Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the ax, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle, and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses. [if there is any danger of Jews doing harm to their gentile overlords] ...let us drive them out of the country for all time ...away with them. http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm Then, there should be! Since his owning writings were obsessed with religion. Take a look at some of the prominent quotes from Mein Kampf, and notice how much he talks about faith, God and how he wants to save Christianity. What started with Ataturk was secular government in a Muslim-majority nation; and even the moderates have to admit that Turkey's secularism has been continually dangling by a thread since the nation was founded, and would not have survived if the constitution wasn't set up to place the military in charge of safe-guarding that constitution, and overthrowing a number of elected governments that tried to change it! And Muslims seem to consider the Caliphate to be a single entity, regardless of which dynasty was in charge: The fall of the Caliphate in 1924 was an event of monumental significance for Muslims as it represented the end of a 1350 year-old institution that had existed since the time of the Prophet Muhammad himself. Its loss had a "deep effect on the way in which politically conscious Arabs thought of themselves" [1] such that in the immediate aftermath, individuals and movements from all quarters of the Islamic political spectrum emerged, advocating the restoration of some form of Shariahbased political system. Demands were not restricted to Turkey though it was the last home of the Caliphate and was then subject to harsh, anti-religious Kemalist policies. In Egypt, even prominent reformists led calls for its immediate re-establishment, Rashid Rida for example saying in his magazine 'al-Manar' "All Muslims will remain in a state of sin until they select another caliph and pledge allegiance to him", and by 1928 a populist Islamic movement had emerged which held Islamic government as a central goal. "When asked what is it that you call, reply that it is Islam, the message of Muhammad, the religion that contains within it a government" were the words of Hassan al-Banna founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. In its dying days, attempts to salvage it where directed from as far away as India by such likes as the Khilafat Movement [2] http://www.newcivilisation.com/index.php/m...article/73/P0/0 And wondering which version of Islam will prevail, would be nothing more than a parlour game for Westerners if it wasn't for the fact that we are spending billions of dollars to buy oil from Muslim nations, many of whom are using a large portion of oil revenues to build mosques and madrassahs that teach the most conservative, hardline version of Islam all around the world today. Now this goes back to the contention of Sam Harris, that moderate religionists are part of the problem, because they want to block any criticism of dangerous ideologies! Should a non-Muslim Western man stay silent while female suicide bombers in Iraq are reminding the world about "martyrdom" or say nothing about barbaric judicial penalties of Sharia, like public stoning, beheadings, or chopping off hands of thieves? Or say nothing when Western publications are intimated into not displaying cartoons because of the threats of violence from Muslims? On the contrary, I would argue that the silence and lack of action by the West when the Ayatollah Khomeini put a contract out on Salmun Rushdie's life, emboldened other extremists to use violence and intimidation to try to stop criticism of many things that need to be challenged.

It appears that the rightwing response is ignoring the fact that emotional appeals to denigrate people by race, country of origin, religion, sexual orientation, can lead to harmful consequences, and go back to blame-shifting by immediately starting a thread that blames liberals for all the problems in the world. When I was wasting my time on a U.S. conservative forum, every time I questioned the ethics of using vitriolic, insulting language to typify everyone in the out-group known collectively as 'liberals' I would immediately get the response 'what criminal acts have we committed, compared to these Muslims, blacks, Mexicans etc.'; when questioned about abortion clinic bombers, the response was usually something like 'they've only killed a few people, compared to what our enemies are doing.' I doubt that the hardcore Right is any more likely to take any blame for whipping up hostilities now than they were before!

That's true, and if Canadian conservatism wasn't being polluted by the influence of the American Right, I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place! But since Harper is bringing Republican advisers, like pollster Frank Luntz, and taking advice from a group called the "Institute of Marriage and Family Canada," a Canadian branch of James Dobson's Focus On the Family Ministries -- then we acknowledge that the conservatism of the traditional Tories is a thing of the past, and being replaced by a new brand of conservatism that uses religion, aggressive nationalism, fear of crime, fear of non-whites, to secure a political base. It may shock you to know that not only did I vote P.C., Reform, Alliance etc. over the last 20 years, I was a member of the Ontarion P.C. Party and worked on both of Mike Harris's campaigns here in Ontario. But Harris would be considered a libertarian by the new conservatives who want to push a social agenda. Back in 97 or 98, Harris got a lot of static for refusing to make 'prolife' a issue, and for refusing to consider invoking the Not-Withstanding clause to nullify a Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing same-sex benefits in the workplace. The weakness of a conservative government sticking to economic issues is that it did not provide a large, loyal base that could be counted on to donate money and work for the Party. Even after turning the Ontario economy around and balancing the budget, Harris's re-election was much more difficult than it should have been. In 2002, he decided not to go for a third term, partly because many of the sweeping reforms of the "Common Sense Revolution" to education, health, welfare reform and municipal amalgamation did not work out as well as planned (the solutions always look simple in theory); but if we compare with someone like George Bush, who is leading his country to economic disaster, I have to ask how Dubya can still have favourability ratings between 25 and 30%, while Brian Mulroney was in single digits for doing far less damage! The only thing I can come up with is that Harris, Mulroney and traditional Tories did not utilize the emotional appeal of race, religion and nationalism that fuels the Republican Party in the U.S. Those 28% of Americans that are still loyal Bush supporters would be willing to follow him over the cliff because they can't distinguish 'Republican' from 'God and Country.' So, it may not have been accurate to compare the U.S. rigthwing with Canadian conservatives in the past, but today, our conservatives are just immitating their American big brothers!

NO! It's a question of whether rightwing pundits who demonize liberals, share some moral responsibility for inciting lunatic fans like James Adkinsson to commit violent acts against a targeted group, by telling the fans that these are vile people who are deliberately trying to destroy America. But since you're not willing to answer the question, get on your little bike and ride out of here!

"that left wing people are bullies!" You don't even use a qualifier like: some or a few or even most -- no you're demagoguing right from the start, since you are labeling an entire group that you consider leftist! Now who's the fascist? Do you live in North Korea? Otherwise, I have to wonder where you are finding these vicious lefties that you are afraid to disagree with! Well, those are all stupid ideas, but I don't understand why your knees turn to jello rather than say that you don't believe the earth is getting warmer! If you spoke up for yourself, you wouldn't be throwing around words like fascism to characterize people who strongly disagree with you! Is that what turned Ben Stein into a creationist imbecile? Did it not occur to you that this girl would be subject to worse verbal and even physical attacks in some areas if they recognize what the symbol means? Yes indeed, conservatives run Canada and the U.S. -- and look what a great job they've done! As far as fascism goes, it uses emotional appeals to nationalism, race and religion. As Sinclair Lewis put it, many years ago: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." http://www.answers.com/topic/sinclair-lewis

I want to follow up with some thoughts I had while reading the propaganda thread about liberal media bias, with a look at how the inflammatory rhetoric and hatred of liberals, minorities, immigrants, homosexuals etc. may be pushing the lunatic fringe on the Right to lash out in a homicidal manner. We've already seen this happen in the 80's when despicable groups like Operation Rescue openly called for murder of all those who are taking "innocent life;" a call that was interpreted as venting my most of the idiots in the churches where they were speaking, but did inspire a few nutcases to take action by killing abortion doctors, nurses, security guards and bombing abortion clinics. The violence forced even the most idiotic fundamentalist churches to stop hosting Randall Terry or promoting Operation Rescue and other incendiary groups. Now, surprise, surprise, we find that Jim Adkisson, the 58 year old loser who walked in to a Unitarian church in Knoxville, TN, and shot and killed people attending a children's performance of "Annie", had books by O'Reilly, Savage, and Hannity on his reading list. "Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, 'because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.' "Adkisson told Still that 'he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office.' "Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because 'he expected to be killed during the assault.' "Inside the house, officers found 'Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder' by radio talk show host Michael Savage, 'Let Freedom Ring' by talk show host Sean Hannity, and 'The O'Reilly Factor,' by television talk show host Bill O'Reilley."Adkisson was a loner who hates 'blacks, gays and anyone different from him,' longtime acquaintance Carol Smallwood of Alice, Texas, told the Knoxville News Sentinel. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/OReilly_Sava...hurch_0728.html And just like with the abortion-clinic bombers, most rational people will keep their hatreds subdued and refrain from acting out, but this guy provides at least one example of a nutcase who takes in the demonization of people who look different and have different ideas about government (especially Savage!), and decides that he's going to take action! What's amazing is how this idiot blamed all of his problems, divorce, unemployment etc. on the "liberals." Maybe while he's sitting in prison reading all of his favourite conservative books, he can ask himself who brought more misery into his life: liberals or conservatives.

The neverending whining from neocon supporters of John McCain, overlooks the fact that he has been a media darling up till now, and is just throwing a tantrum because the MSM would rather focus their cameras on mass rallies and photo-ops with foreign leaders, than watch some old man try to make small talk with a bunch of old fogies at some lunch-counter in the middle of nowhere! It was the Right who wanted media deregulated in the first place, and now they are complaining because the nightly news has become a form of entertainment! It's enough to make my stomach turn to listen to gasbags like Rush Limbaugh talk about "the mainstream media", when the company he works for owns 1200 radio stations across the U.S., not including XM Satellite radio, soon to be merged with Sirius, not to mention that it is a company that has an established policy of censoring opinions critical of the Bush Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel...ions#Censorship So who really controls the media? The fact that McCain is being ignored owes more to the fact that he's a boring old fart and hardcore conservatives have already rejected him, than it does to any alleged media bias!

I suppose that since George Bush has been a perfect storm of a disaster while in office, the only faint hope for Neocons is that somehow, some way, nostalgic history buffs will rehabilitate this idiot and portray him as a visionary who defended the Free World in a time of peril ( I'm sure that's what George Jr. is hoping for also!) George does have one thing in his favour -- it seems that the favourability ratings of wartime presidents is higher than presidents who managed to avoid engaging in foreign conflicts. Later generations of Americans forget the presidents who wage peace and prosperity, and favour the warriors, even when they lead the country into disasters like Vietnam. But George is a disaster on so many levels -- he inherited a nation with a balanced budget and yesterday the Whitehouse is projecting a deficit of more than 500 billion dollars, when the off-book war costs are factored in! If future historians remember George Bush as the president who led America into an economic disaster that led to the collapse of America as the pre-eminent military and economic power in the world, how favourable will his comparison be with Truman or any other past president?

Maybe I didn't express my point clearly enough earlier about why I believe issues of ethics and morality should be discussed and evaluated openly, rather than closed off as private matters -- the point I was trying to make is that the pro-choice side is always going to be under assault because they rarely if ever defend the ethics of abortion. The only people making a public case are the prolifers who wave bloody signs around and talk about baby-killers! If your default response is "it's a woman's right to choose" or "it's a matter between a woman and her doctor" that says nothing about the ethics of abortion! A lot of people want to know what the difference is between a late term fetus and an infant, besides whether or not the umbilical cord is still attached! Should fetal development play a role in determining whether there should be restrictions on abortion? As long as it's a 'private matter', the issue doesn't get settled, and all abortion rights are subject to revision! Most rational people who respond to the question of banning or restricting "partial-birth abortion," always make exceptions for reasons such as health risks or birth defects. But, with improved prenatal testing, some guidelines are going to be needed to stop perfectionists from aborting late term fetuses because they are the wrong sex, may be diabetic, club-footed etc..