Trial-and-Error

Do you know what a fascist is? Can you provide examples which show the US is a fascist state or has fascist policies? Please do your own research. I refuse to get caught up in the exercise of trying to edify anyone from the political right. I claim the U.S. is fast becoming a fascist state; in fact, I claim the transformation is just a smidge short of complete. Prove me wrong. Once I get an inkling that you have the slightest idea of what you're arguing against, I'll communicate with you further. I state as evidence that you're not quite ready for prime time the infantile responses you gave to my original post. The remainder are hopeless. Utterly, utterly hopeless. Followers, the lot of them--and all without an iota of just plain common sense. Unlike.... you? Exactly! Many times of late I've been tempted to weigh in on the "debates," I'm gathering that weight would be minimal. Sad to say but "gathering" anything is an exercise which is presently beyond your reach. Why does a Bush rise to the Presidency of the U.S.? Because he has a folksy charm and a simple message, and the Democrats ran an atrocious campaign with a charisma free candidate? Tell me why YOU feel that Bush is fit to lead. Well... he's been doing it, and people aren't calling him Mr. Dithers. Alas, your vaccuous responses reflect precisely my point; namely, that with the exception noted in my original post, only the (choose one or more of the following:) ill-informed, the non-informed, the easily led, the mentally challenged can comfortably reside on the political right. You haven't the foggiest notion of what's really going on or where American foreign policy is leading to. Not the foggiest!! Dupes! We're just not as clear thinking as you and, uh, articulate. Yeah, that's the thing, articulate. No, dear Argus, you got it right the first time. Clear thinking enables one to be articulate, but cute try. And now, Argus, please allay my fears and tell me that your responses to my post were a put on. Hell, I'm giving you an out. For gawd's sakes, grab it!!

I don't get it! Why do the people on the left--the thinkers if you will--continue their efforts to try and educate those on the right of whom only a fraction it could be said have traces of a brain; namely, those who benefit from U.S. fascist policies. The remainder are hopeless. Utterly, utterly hopeless. Followers, the lot of them--and all without an iota of just plain common sense. Many times of late I've been tempted to weigh in on the "debates," but have refrained realizing the futility of it all. Let me give you guys on the right a bit of advice. Never mind your bloody sources and your ability to parrot and paraphrase opinions of flaming right "leadership." Try to reason things out on your own based on your own observations and basic facts--not the OPINIONS of others. Think motivation. Think who has the most to gain from a particular policy. Size up the words of a politician to his deeds and actions. Why are the stakes so high in politics? Why does a Bush rise to the Presidency of the U.S.? How did he get there? Why is he there? What are his qualifications? What is his history? Who put him there (and for gawd's sakes, don't tell me it's cuz he was elected). Hell, the questions are endless. Start asking yourselves some. Go on, I dare you. Tell me why YOU feel that Bush is fit to lead. What are his qualifications for leadership? Get down to the basics. You guys on the right aren't fit to discuss politics or government policy until such time as you sort out the fundamentals. And hell, you've made it patently clear that you are building your arguments on a swampland foundation. You haven't the foggiest notion of what's really going on or where American foreign policy is leading to. Not the foggiest!! Dupes!

I have to agree with the old people It sounds kind of like those "work experience" courses that the dumb-kids take for credit in high-school, except in this instance, citizenship is the job for which you'll be getting work experience. Kimmy, I hope you're not in the education field; if so, resign--immediately. "old people"; "dumb-kids"-- indeed! Bad kimmy! And since when can citizenship be considered analagous to a job? Nah, never mind. And are you suggesting that one has to go through all that rigamarole you describe just to figure out if you're cut out for success at a particular sport or not? I'd opt for passion myself. Bet you dollars to donuts that had you had passion for running you'd have chopped off whatever number of minutes you needed to.

hmmm, what i dont like about this assignment. Well its alot of extra pressure for students as well as teachers and alot more work. You have to prove that you got exercise, and volunteered, etc. Also, you have to write responses and reflections on everything you did, need I say more Volunteer work is simply that--you freely offer your time for no pay. If forced to volunteer, then by definition, you cease to be a volunteer and become a slave. Exercise - can only do you good, portfolio or no portfolio Writing your responses and reflections on what you do outside classroom hours is an invasion of privacy. Do get politically involved to have the program disbanded--an exercise that could prove far more valuable than any portfolio work. I think you're on the right road. That's the sort of thing students should be taught--how to defend themselves against the bureaucracy. Go for it.

For the current administration--911 is Junior's convenient handle on which to pin his cause for continuing war in the Middle East and eroding the human rights of Americans (Patriot Act as one example) thus ensuring the continuance of a military economy at the expense of the masses. For the skeptical--and I dare say their numbers are growing--it's about a dogged search for the truth. Keep 911 front and centre until we unravel all the many questions which have not yet been answered with integrity. I for one will never let go of 911 until such time as we get answers which seem to fit. What we've heard to date from the Commission smells. Sad to say but it's true--and I'm feeling more than a little vulnerable here--what happens closest to us is more real than that which goes on in far away places. We seem to lose sight that for the vast majority of us we are pampered beyond belief relative to half the world's population which exists in abject poverty, fear, and worse. Even those of us who are aware don't get into the fray to ensure that things get turned around. Perhaps one day the guilt will become so overwhelming that I will join forces with others and really DO something other than talk. You're right--on a world scale 911 and Rwanda are not comparable.

To liberals, "compassion" means giving less productive people the fruits of the efforts of more productive people. But real compassion means enabling less productive people to become more productive themselves. That way, the poor have not only more material things but also more self-respect, as well as more respect from others, and the society as a whole has a higher standard of living and less internal strife. -- Thomas Sowell" Interesting, Montgomery. Have you actually read what Sowell wrote. Yes? Well, read it again. "...real compassion means enabling less productive people to become more productive themselves..." Now, bone up on how well American administrations have been doing in this area and report back with your findings. I'll give you a clue. Start with education--the backbone of any society worth its salt. Introduce yourself to what goes on in American inner cities and identify what programs have helped to lift the born disenfranchised out of poverty and into a more productive life. Then as you gather momentum check to see where the majority of American taxpayers' money goes. Who are the major beneficiaries of these tax dollars? Don't forget to check out Uncle Sam's prison system and see how much money is being spent to rehabilitate inmates so that when they return to society they can make a solid contribution to society. You've got a lot of catching up to do so the sooner you get at it the sooner we'll be able to have some kind of a meaningful dialogue.

Little Lost Canadians originally posted by Anticlimax Iknowbest - You do? - Seems to me you could do with a handle change as the current one doesn't appear to fit your comments. Anti has posted some excellent references which you have ignored. Your retort is simply that he is anti-American. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by anti-American. All Americans? Some Americans? The Americans in prison? The Americans who hold office? The Americans who live in the Blue States? The Red? Like what Americans are you talking about that you say he is against. Clue: If you say all, then we can assume that you're applying for fool status.

Ya see, Argus, you went 'n done what you shouldn'tve--you tried to malign the left--and that in my books is a no-no. So belly up to the screen and let me give you my take on the right-wingers. As you kind've alluded to yourself--albeit unwittingly, the right is comprised of basically three groups of people with some overlap. They are: Those who are too lazy, too gullible, too ignorant or too brain-dead to resist the propaganda emanating from mainstream media; those from the radical religious right; and those who have much to gain personally by decisions made by right-wing administrations. Except for the last group, subscribers to the political right rarely if ever practice common sense; that is they don't weigh what they are being told with what the realities are. They simply cannot connect the dots. Now I know this is harsh but I haven't met a flaming right-winger yet that I like much less trust. But I do marvel though at the patience of some of the thought provoking types on this board--of note, of course--the left-wingers. Ever the optimists, they keep hammering away at the right hoping that perhaps THIS is the day that reason will prevail. No it won't. That's why Junior's administration is able to rule. He doesn't dabble in reason; he puts all his money on sheer propaganda--the thoughtfood of fools. And guess what. It works. He doesn't have to bring everyone on board with his assinine and dangerous policies, he just needs to baffle the brains of a few more than the Dems. Remember, the Pubs and the Dems are simply opposite sides of the SAME coin, which generally means the latter is able to make the medicine go down easier. War on Drugs - The Sweal is dead on. The right (and to a certain extent the left) want to use the tragedy to step away from the decriminalization of weed and jack up prison sentences for those in the grow-op "business." Huh? Besides being opportunistic, the right is reacting illogically to the killing of four Mounties. This is about murder not marijuana. What I would want to know is how did one guy manage to snuff out the lives of four supposedly well trained police officers, albeit rookies? Who at RCMP H.Q.'s is responsible for choreographing this operation? Were the four mounties near one another when shot? If so, why? If they were not together, why when the first shot was fired did they not retreat and call for back-up? Before going in after this guy, was there any reconnaissance? I mean, I find the whole thing quite bizarre. So I ask, why would increased prison sentences prevent a similar event from happening in the futurte? That's rhetorical by the way. Moreover, if you think marijuana played a role in all of this, you should be looking at supporting the legalizing not only of marijuana but of all drugs. Never mind the moralizizing. Think pragmatic. Here, try this as a stepping off point. It calls for a bit of reading but you might find it interesting. The real goods on drugs and this from Noam Chomsky U.S. Role in Drug War P.S. By the way I don't think there's much of a difference between the Liberals (the "so-called" left) and the Conservatives (most assuredly the right). The Liberals for me are simply the lesser of two evils. I don't see much honesty and public trust being practiced by government. Hell I don't see any. But I relentlessly attack Bush simply because he has the most resources to do egregious harm--as he has proven.

It is the criminalization of drugs which is the cause of the problem. Sorry, Iknowbest, you don't. You're deluded if you think that your friend is finally educated. But never mind, as accepting as the left tend to be, I still think they would prefer to purge their ranks of non-thinkers--in a nice way--of course. Sounds to me like your friend is eminently qualified to move in with Ralphie. Where's that snake-like creature been of late, I wonder. Must be an unturned rock out there somewhere.

Tokyo - I am aghast and sorely offended! Surely you're not suggesting that I was suggesting that August should get the hell out of Canada because he does not reflect the "Canadian way"? Mon dieu, non! I'm not a "love it or leave it" type. I was merely trying to show empathy and concern for August. Wouldn't you agree that he owes it to himself to give the American way of life a shot? Why be miserable in a country which favours peace when what you really admire and support is one that favours war and a military economy? The U.S. of A. would be that one. A perfect fit, no?

TO: Conservative Senators, Congressmen, Wall Street Sugar Daddies FROM: CEO-in-Chief, George W. Bush RE: Cramming Social Security Privatization Down the Rooster-Necked Throats of the Feeble Near-Dead Hordes Gentlemen, As many of you may recall from the recent campaign, the lynchpin of the domestic policy I occasionally mentioned (when not stirring my bubbling cauldron of brimstone-scented terror gruel) was "reforming" the socialist ATM machine known as Social Security. Invented by that snotty pinko cripple FDR over seventy years ago, Social Security represents our easiest target to firebomb as we redouble our efforts to restore America to its Great Depression gilded age – a time when the otherwise asinine secular theory of "natural selection" saw its only worthwhile application: facilitating the acquisition of whole fleets of Duesenbergs for my grandpappy Prescott and his Hitler-fellating cronies. Because who wants a merciful meritocracy when you're born with mad loot? "Screw the American Hordes" This pretty much sums up Junior's concern for the masses. Bleed them dry--it makes for a good laugh, doncha think?

Chretien is a bonafide Canuck and a Liberal--albeit one with a seeming penchant for feathering the nest as it were. Thus we must afford him protection as a matter of course. Harper on the other hand is a known wannabe card-carrying American determined to fashion us after the Bush neocons. Thus he deserves our derision. And Junior -WELL!! By his own actions he advertises himself as a voracious bottom feeder. Thus we shall give him hell! kimmy, kimmy, kimmy, how the dickens are you tonight? Thanks for your response to the above post, albeit soooo serious. Why I should be miffed! Seems you just don't appreciate my sense of play. Not to worry, cuz I do! Still, don't park your sense of humour when you sign in here? Next time, bring it with you.

I wish you guys would crack down on the Bush/ American and Harper insults with the same fervor. We meet again, kimmy. Chretien is a bonafide Canuck and a Liberal--albeit one with a seeming penchant for feathering the nest as it were. Thus we must afford him protection as a matter of course. Harper on the other hand is a known wannabe card-carrying American determined to fashion us after the Bush neocons. Thus he deserves our derision. And Junior -WELL!! By his own actions he advertises himself as a voracious bottom feeder. Thus we shall give him hell! Besides I don't think it was the word "scumbag" so much as it was the way you phrased it--suggesting that not only do you think of him as a scumbag but worse--that he's a French scumbag with a speech impediment. Didn't you guys learn anything from the election of a decade ago? Yeah, Mulroney did enormous damage to the PCs but c'mon, what was with the negative Chretien campaign ads? And you're at it again. It must be in the psyche of the fringe right.

"We do not want a principled decision to result in us having less control over our national sovereignty," said Ignatieff. "We must not walk away from the table. We must be there at the table, defending what only we can defend." Okay, this guy has university degrees, is a Liberal, the son of a DISTINGUISHED diplomat no less, is an author and serves on some board or other at Harvard. I'm impressed. So he doesn't want any principled decision which could result in Canada "having less control over our national sovereignty" than What? Is he saying we don't have any control now? If so, he's right. If anyone thinks for a minute that if we engage in talks with the U.S. and climb aboard that we will have more control than we do now--perhaps--but it will be cosmetic control and no more. The U.S. will never concede to anything that would jeopardize its own well being. It's the U.S. first, second and last. But if you're satisfied with the few crumbs he'll throw our way, then step up to the table and partake of this heathenistic endeavour. As I've noted in other posts, the man is mad and quite, quite unsavory. As if Bush's fear mongering isn't enough we have it going on this side of the border too. I wouldn't vote for this yahoo. Trudeauesque? I don't think so.

This would give our gov't as much warning as the US gov't has.... The up-side: It has not cost the tax payers of Canada nothing todate, ...it would give Canada access to this type of tech....It would put Canadians at the controls of said defense system....It would allow if agreed to ...to have missle sites in northern Canada allowing for an interception in the artic region away from populated centers. It would go a long way into repairing our relationship with the US...in would also signal that we are starting to take our defense seriously..... I'm sorry, army, your argument does not persuade me that Canada should sign up for BMD. 1. You say Canada is not contributing $$$ to this mad idea. Okay, but why would it? The only country I see that has it in for Canada is the wolf to the south. 2. Canada would be at the controls you say. Yo - that's a concession. We would be at the controls doing what we're ordered to do. Tank that one! 2. Interception in the arctic. Only some Natives and a few odd scientists working up in that region would be affected. All well and good--uh-huh--but you see we haven't an enemy in the world coming at us from over the pole but if we get involved in this mess, we might very well make ourselves a target. Instead of backing up the bully to the south we should be out there globally promoting Canada the Good just in case Junior starts to get rough--if you get my drift. 3. better relations with the U.S.? Whatever for? I have great relations with several individuals down there, but they along with me have no desire to curry favour with Junior's administration--not now--not ever. I owe no allegiance to Bush the Aggressor. I want Canada to have no sycophantic relationship with the beast. I for one am sick of his threats. Where's that spine of yours, army?! Principle, man, principle. Give in to bullies and you're finished. There is never any end to their demands. My suggestion to our P.M. is to encourage Canadian businesses to drum up more markets overseas and make as many friends as we possibly can. Bush is no friend to Canada. Hell, Bush is no friend to his fellow Americans save the rich and powerful. He and his kind are users and will spare no expense of others to achieve their own ends. Wakey, wakey!! You and those who think as you do must wean yourselves from the neocon press.

August et al, I have been meaning to ask you, have you tried applying for your green card? Having read some of your posts, I just know you're ready to play in the Bush league. It's just that--well, you so fit the American profile of the great unwashed. Just remember, you only go around once so why not experience the real thing instead of remaining in Canada and living the American way of life vicariously? And while you're there, why not sign up for Junior's war. Do right by George and feel the thrill of it all.

How many people out there really think that "if" a missle is fired at the US that they are not going to engage it, to defend themselfs....be it over Canada or not....do you think they are going to phone and ask permission.....and if we say no....and they engage it any ways...what then... Can you help me understand army? - are you suggesting that if we sign on to the BMD the USA will be sure to call us for permission? As you say yourself the Americans are going to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves no matter if we're at the table or not. Can you be specific about what the upside would be if we did sign on?

Blogs Here to Stay Television networks have been successful in dumbing down and outright lying about what's really going on around the world. Self-regulation. To regulate the internet would undoubtedly mean government regulation. Do you think there is already movement afoot to do this--say in the U.S. among other western nations? Is it doable technologically? Would there be enough public opposition to make such a scenario impossible? It seems to me I read somewhere that China and NKorea can block a good deal of information already. Inasmuch as knowledge is power, where is the net going in terms of helping people around the world to corral despotic leaders? Didn't know exactly where to put this topic--lord knows it doesn't fit this category either--but it was my best shot.

So I am NOT saying that Dubya is NOT insane. Pocket, I love your double negative - only kidding. I don't think I'll debate with you further on the finer points as it seems we agree for the most part--we among others "get it." Ya have to love self-serving, doncha? But I agree with Caesar--do, do bring your personal feelings into the debate. As I understand her to say, our opinions should be formed by filtering what we read through our own common sense, experiences, observations et al to arrive at some conclusions that seem "to fit." Who knows who's really right in these debates. Only time will tell, but in the meantime, I'm pretty sure who the "winners" will be--of course. In the meantime, I really do appreciate your attitude reflected in what I think was a well measured response and will try not to be too quick on the trigger next time.

That being the case, the providers of healthcare don't have any real way of knowing what value consumers place upon the services, what kinds of service they demand and so on. They can gather statistics on healthcare use, conduct surveys and so forth, but the problem with this kind of data is that it can only show you what happened, not what is happening or what will happen, so as a tool for computing future production they are all but useless. Hugo, let's see if I've got this straight. Sickness for profit is the only way to go cuz (1) only a private company can guage the value consumers place on getting well. Does that mean that if you're not using the service, you must be denigrating its value? (2) privatization is the only meaningful way of getting consumer feedback. Why is it that public hospitals can't get feedback? Seems to me that in Canada they're getting a good deal of meaningful feedback. It's only the political will to act upon it that's the problem (and no, it does not necessarily mean throwing a lot more money at it: Think management!) Let's go with your system. Let's say you have a struggling poet, a social worker and a well heeled gun manufacturer/whatever. The gun manufacturer pays megabucks for his hospital stay (1) cuz he can afford to or (2) he values his health or (1 and (2). The poet being at the mercy of the state receives less than optimal care cuz (1) he can't pay for anything but the basics; or (2) he's not all that interested in getting well or (1) and (2) The social worker whose work in the market place is valued poorly as her salary used to reflect receives only adequate care cuz (1) she's lost her job and can't pay for optimal care or (2) she's only moderately interested in getting well or (1) and (2) So in your scheme of things, it's not the person we as a society need to value but rather the amount of money a person is able to acquire in order to play in the market--albeit the sickness market. I mean there are yahoos like the struggling poet who would actually place more importance on putting a roof over their families head than on getting well. Obviously, skewed values and priorities. He could give up poetry and dig some ditches; better still, he could join the army and learn how to kill (an invaluable societal skill) or perhaps he could get a job working for the gun manufacturer (I mean why not learn the real meaning of contributing to society). That he's teaching his kids to be giving, kind, honest, and is providing them with a liberal education counts for little. He's basically a useless pauper subject to the mercy of the state. The social worker who chose her profession because she wanted to make a positive contribution to society is unfortunately unemployed because something on the home front necessitated her leaving the job. Too bad. Well, not really, she could mortgage her home and come up with the monies to pay for good care. At least she will if she values getting well. Yes, folks, it all comes down to P&L. We really must do more to encourage folks to go into the public health system so they can do whatever is necessary to bilk the sick. Can we all agree with Hugo that sickness for profit is a good thing? The very idea of attracting the right people into the medical profession for all the right reasons is not the American way. There isn't anything ya can't make a profit out've. The Americans have, alas, raised greed to an art form. That we Canucks should follow is simply out of the question. Well, maybe not, we have our fair share of neocons--sad to say.

Are you trying to tell us that our priorities should lie in other directions--e.g., update our public health care system to reduce waiting lists; initiate a national prescription drug program; create a national child care program; improve our educational system so that kids will learn how to think for themselves and be immune to propaganda from government and corporate sectors; initiate a job creation program that would assist people to get meaningful full-time employment; increase welfare for the truly needy; clean up the environment; create a kind of country that others will clamour to emulate? I mean, are those the sorts of things you really feel we should be devoting our time and money to? Are you seriously suggesting that we should not be conned into Junior's BMD program so a few can become more obscenely rich than they already are? Are you saying that a BMD program will only serve to put Canadians more at risk in any number of ways? My gawd, man, if that's the case, you're bordering on anti-Americanism! At the very least, you're showing a decided bias against the corporate world. That bodes well!!

iTo Bush, Blair, et al, war is simply something that is happening far away, to other people. Whatever the REAL motivation behind this war (I don't believe we've been told the truth, and we may never be), being insulated from war's very real effects on very real people makes it easy to point at a map and say "We'll invade there", and then go home and sit down to a nice dinner. s just one of those things Pocket, Pocket, Pocket - You write as if you condone Junior's separation from the reality of war cuz of the times - or are you now agreeing that the boy is mad, insane, nuts? I mean if you realize that the boy doesn't grasp the reality of war you don't want to be minimizing his madness by simply blaming it on "the times." Who knows what other plans a psychotic Junior might be hatching in his wretched brain? He could very conceivably ratchet up his diabolical acts to include the use of the bomb. Yeah, yeah, I know, it'll never happen. I have to laugh--many say that the bomb will never be used again as they point as PROOF to the cold war when all heads prevailed. Ya have to love the optimism even though it's in no way supported by plain common sense. (I know, I know, we can't be coming from a common sense POV--we need an "expert" to back us up--more drivel!!) Why for 60 years we have managed to keep the lid on total anhilitation. Imagine that. Sixty whole years--a period which is not even a blip on the scale of human civilization. If we don't get a handle on our greed and exploitation of others, and if we don't learn how to identify and thus prevent maniacal individuals from coming to power, we will inevitably unleash our WMD and obliterate ourselves. The Titantic will never sink. WWII will be the end of all wars. Countries will never again employ torture techniques--and the USA, God's chosen country, would never condone torture much less engage in it. The USA is a liberator. The USA is altruistic. The USA makes preemptive strikes only against those who despise the freedom of the American people. Junior will never use the bomb. Junior is not mad. Everything is under control. Ooooookay. .

I have never seen evidence of this predatory pricing. The cost to WalMart would be tremendous. Besides the fact that I am touched by your sympathies for Walmart, I think it's obvious you don't shop much. Loss leaders is a very common practice among large stores, especially discount stores. And what stops a small competitor from moving back in once prices rise again? Gee, let's see now, how about giving yourself some time to mull that over and see if you can come up with some reasons a small competitor would find it difficult--and no doubt impossible--to return to the scene. Clue: Think financial resources and yo-yo. Some people feel uncomfortable with change of any sort. They want the government to intervene and make things safe. The Soviet Union showed that that is a path to stagnation. Make things safe?!! for whom? the great unwashed? You're kidding, of course. I don't think even the poor are that delusional. The vast majority of government legislation is written in favour of the rich and powerful (dems that pays the political bills)--even in Canada where by U.S. standards we are a relevantly socialistic country. Government is an old boys club where if you play the game, perfect the art of lying; master obfuscation and double-talk; build up a strong resistance to criticism; create an aura of indignant righteousnous and embrace hypocrisy, why you, too, can rise as "cream" to the top, with all the attendant perks and an indexed pension which you can then afford to use as "pin money." Try tuning into CPAC and see our government in action. Monkies could not begin to compete with such evident incompetence; still it does have good entertainment value if you have the stomach for that kind of humour. Unfortunately, with those needed traits only the scum rise to the top.

I Miss Trudeau Gomery should have known better than to: i) speak to the press about an inquiry he is currently presiding over, and ii) reach decisions without hearing all of the evidence. Absolutely and for a judge to rationalize his remarks (as he did) by declaring he was inexperienced with the press is disingenuous at best. Having said that, I also agree with eureka who feels that the Commission Inquiry is a egregious waste of money, much of which will transfer into the lawyers' pockets--and what a terrible waste of paper. It would be interesting to see how many tons of it they've gone through already. The point is who in hell do we vote for come next election. The Conservatives I can't abide and aren't they just chomping on the bit to get back to the trough. The Libs on the other hand have not been shy at dipping into the public coffers. I would so love it if the NDP had a Tommy Douglas at the helm. To reach lift-off it needs a charismatic leader with extraordinary oratory skills who can capture the imagination of Quebecers and Ontarians to vote for a party that truly will put people first. Jack Layton, alas, is not that person. BQ - a creature which surely only exists in Canada. I can't fathom how it can serve as a political party when its primary reason for existing is to do all that it can to secede from Canada. We may have four political parties as opposed to the two-party system in the States, but does anyone here see a clear choice and why?

In a word, kimmy, YES! Most wars in my opinion are initiated by psychotics, which now, in the age of awe power gives much cause for concern. What's even more troubling is that so many people believe that war is inevitable and thus do not really question it sufficiently to make a positive difference. If the earth and its inhabitants are to survive the nuclear age, there will need to be a paradigm shift in public thinking vis-a-vis how we view war and how we select our leaders. Independent, beholding-to-no-one screening of leaders should begin in ernest. But to Junior specifically: That he began a preemptive strike against a country which he knew was no threat to the U.S.--imminent or otherwise--tells me that he is out of touch with reality; i.e., he is incapable of truly understanding the seriousness of war and the abject, unspeakable travesty it wreaks, to say nothing of the trillions of dollars his wretched decision has cost. Some will say well, okay, Junior went to war because he wanted he and his buddies to control the flow of Iraqi oil--so let's put it down to greed. Or, some will say, okay, he "thought" the U.S. was in imminent danger (really bad intelligence backed up with absolutely no proof). Or some will say Junior is just a spoilt brat. To go to war in the first instance suggests to me that greed has ceased just being greed and has stepped into the realm of pathology. In other words, greed has superceded his grasp on reality. To go to war in the second instance is false because he was given completely reliable information that Saddam did NOT have WMD and the U.S. was NOT in any imminent danger from Iraq. In my opinion, one would have to be truly psychotic to take preemptive action And in the third instance, I find it ludicrous that some could even contemplate that merely being a spoilt brat would be the underpinnings to war and thousands being killed. Again, his spoilt bratism has superceded his grasp on reality and moved into psychosis. Further, I find it totally incomprehensible how anyone "among the willing" can believe even for a fleeting minute that Junior's goal for the invasion was to silence Saddam (former ally) forever and bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people--this extraordinary incongruity on the heels of proven lies; namely, that the U.S. was in imminent danger from Iraq's WMDs and that bin Laden had been in cahoots with Saddam is nothing short of mind boggling. Levy in his article attempts to address the complicity of the American people. I Miss Trudeau (and so do I, kind've) A far more damning action was Bush's hard-on for executing people, even ones who had evidence supporting their innocence. Someone may not need to be insane to deploy a military force, but there has to be something wrong upstairs when you insist on executing people who you know are innocent. What baffles me, though, is why someone being responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocents(as in a war based entirely on contrivances) should be considered any less insane than someone who is responsible and gleeful for the state murder of let's say a handful of innocents.