03-06-2004 10:43									#391
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by dejon Are you really ignorant, or just acting? If the former, try actually reading the platform Any other party means no or little change. Only Green recognizes that for the plethora of issues in a modern society, we may have to completely change how we govern ourselves. I am not niave enough to believe they can win, but with enough support in the next few elections, we can start to build in that direction. And even if they never win, increased Green support will at least show the other parties that it is time to look at serious change, not just minor changes each time a different party gets in and otherwise maintain the status quo.

Whoa, relax big fella and roll a... spliff(?) or something.

Ever seen someone try to jack his own thread?

	03-06-2004 10:49									#392
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Because the 1/3 disapproval for change must come from the representatives of 1/3 of the population. This requirement does not, by necessity, favour one group of the people over another. It allows a minority veto... just like the Senate. A Senate allows the minority (this is your whole point) to veto a law passed by the majority. By representing those areas which have low representation in your lower house, it gives them a stronger voice - but only inasmuch as a minority veto does.

Man, you should try wrapping your head around this: the existence of a conservative Constitution allows a veto by the representatives of any 1/3 of the pop. The existence of a regionally-biased Senate allows a veto by the representatives of a certain minority of the population, but not by others. That's what I am completely opposed to. You're running dangerously close to me declaring you an idiot and never responding seriously to you again, as I've repeated the same point a dozen times now.

quote: And like the founding fathers... so yes, I must be so anti-democracy!

Yup. The US was a great step forward for democracy, but not the final step.

quote: Will of every person. Rule of the majority is not rule of the people, it's rule of the majority. Giving the minority a veto is the only real way to simulate rule of the people.

Which minority? The Constitution gives the representatives of any 1/3 of the people a veto. The Senate gives a certain minority of people a veto but not others.

quote: how does that rig it in favor of a minority?

Oh, my God. If one minority has a veto power but another minority of equal size does not then the first minority has been deliberately favoured at the expense of others.

quote: How?

Because a minority government would almost certainly be too weak to pass any of its initiatives, given that these would probably be controversial. Sigh. I'm really connecting the dots for you here. Have you ever studied the operation (not just the theory) of government systems outside the US? Seen what happens under minority governments? Tried to imagine why certain things wouldn't be possible in the US?

quote: They don't?

To a Canadian the politics here is bland, bland, bland. It's not just that everything is moved to the right (which it is); it's also that the politicians (the ones anybody listens to, which disqualifies your namesake) sound remarkably similar when it comes down to policy ideas.

quote: 1) nitpicking: that would definately be a liberal constitution

Oh, my God #2.

In the original sense of the word "conservative" means to resist change. To "conserve" a previous set of values.

quote: 2) back on topic: this is as consistent with one man, one vote as is requiring a two-thirds majority - in both cases, some people have more influence than others.

In one system a certain minority is favoured directly by the voting system. In the other a certain minority gains more influence via the political situation/ the issue at hand. In the Senate system in the US a certain minority of people (those in small states) wield massively disproportionate power on all issues. Duh.

	03-06-2004 10:57									#393
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Man, you should try wrapping your head around this: the existence of a conservative Constitution allows a veto by the representatives of any 1/3 of the pop. The existence of a regionally-biased Senate allows a veto by the representatives of a certain minority of the population, but not by others. That's what I am completely opposed to. You're running dangerously close to me declaring you an idiot and never responding seriously to you again, as I've repeated the same point a dozen times now.

I see your point, I just don't understand how it's an objection. Surely at least partial representation of minorities is better than none, and it's equally obvious that those minorities that need such a veto (assuming you already have requirements similar to ours wrt amending your constitution) are going to be in the same region, given that the main reason this representation is needed is to prevent massively unfair wealth redistribution.

quote: Yup. The US was a great step forward for democracy, but not the final step.

And your point is... would you call the people who wrote the American Constitution "anti-democracy"? I'm in fact espousing a position significantly closer to yours than theirs, given how far the balance of power has shifted between the State and Federal governments.

quote: Which minority? The Constitution gives the representatives of any 1/3 of the people a veto. The Senate gives a certain minority of people a veto but not others.

See above.

quote: Oh, my God. If one minority has a veto power but another minority of equal size does not then the first minority has been deliberately favoured at the expense of others.

See above.

quote: Because a minority government would almost certainly be too weak to pass any of its initiatives, given that these would probably be controversial.

How is it different under a system with a senate and a system without one? OBVIOUSLY a minority government will have difficulty passing things - but the existance of a bicameral legislature doesn't change this, except inasmuch as it makes ALL legislation more difficult to pass.

quote: Oh, my God #2. In the original sense of the word "conservative" means to resist change. To "conserve" a previous set of values.

But a constitution protecting rights and freedoms is liberal in the original sense of the word.

quote: In one system a certain minority is favoured directly by the voting system. In the other a certain minority gains more influence via the political situation/ the issue at hand. In the Senate system in the US a certain minority of people (those in small states) wield massively disproportionate power on all issues. Duh.

See above.

	03-06-2004 10:59									#394
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich That's odd... because our system in fact favors them. Why do you think presidential candidates campaign so much in those states?

No, it doesn't. It favours California as a state in the sense that California gets more say than Wyoming. This is as it should be because California's 30 million completely outweigh Wyoming's 300 000 (by a factor of 100 to 1). The problem is that the people of California only wield 45(?) odd times as much power in the House of Reps (this is due to roundoff error and can be excused), 16 times as much power in presidential elections and exactly the same amount of power in the Senate.

Why should it be that the vote of a single Wyominger counts as much as the vote of 6 Californians in the Presidential election and as that of 100 Californians in the Senate? Why should the 300 000 people of Wyoming wield so much more power than the 300 000 people of Anaheim?

	03-06-2004 11:03									#395
	Tired of ads?

wrt Presidential elections, the larger states get tons of attention because the candidates can't campaign in every single state. It's beneficial to both.

(note: I guess I forgot to mention that I'm not in favor of the EC, I think the President should be directly elected. However, this is because I think the EC cannot fulfill its intended purpose - which was to have the people pick a set of other people they trusted to choose the President).

	03-06-2004 11:05									#396
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well Harper is going nuts.

He now wants to buy TWO aircraft carriers.

I'm all in favour of more military spending but what the **** will we do with two carriers?????

And doesn't Harper realise that carriers need to be protected. Our frigates are designed for carrier protection. And these are helicopter carriers which can't operate without air cover (read battle carrier).

Is this how the Conservatives would be fiscally responsible?

What a nutcase.

	03-06-2004 11:05									#397
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse No, it doesn't. It favours California as a state in the sense that California gets more say than Wyoming. This is as it should be because California's 30 million completely outweigh Wyoming's 300 000 (by a factor of 100 to 1). The problem is that the people of California only wield 45(?) odd times as much power in the House of Reps (this is due to roundoff error and can be excused), 16 times as much power in presidential elections and exactly the same amount of power in the Senate. Why should it be that the vote of a single Wyominger counts as much as the vote of 6 Californians in the Presidential election and as that of 100 Californians in the Senate? Why should the 300 000 people of Wyoming wield so much more power than the 300 000 people of Anaheim?

You're looking at this from the wrong angle.

The people of Wyoming have equal representation with the people of California in ONE legislative body. In the HoR and Electoral College, they still get their asses handed to them. The Senate is a check and a balance (which I know you and Tingkai hate, but some of us value), inasmuchas Wyoming can protect itself from abuse by the more highly populated states. Wyoming is not given any more power to create legislation or force its will on the Big Boys... the people have merely been given the tools to protect themselves from abuse through the system.

Once again: it is not tyranny of the minority, it is simply protection from abuse.

(But, uh, NYE says we have to get back to talking electiony-stuff now... )

	03-06-2004 11:11									#398
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai H He now wants to buy TWO aircraft carriers.

What would you put on them? What the point of aircraft carriers if you don't have guns?

	03-06-2004 11:13									#399
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Well Harper is going nuts. He now wants to buy TWO aircraft carriers. I'm all in favour of more military spending but what the **** will we do with two carriers????? And doesn't Harper realise that carriers need to be protected. Our frigates are designed for carrier protection. And these are helicopter carriers which can't operate without air cover (read battle carrier). Is this how the Conservatives would be fiscally responsible? What a nutcase.

What?

	03-06-2004 11:21									#400
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Liberals to fund more soldiers, national day care
Last Updated Thu, 03 Jun 2004 0:45:56
WINDSOR, ONT. - The Liberal election platform promises funding for a national child-care system, adds 8,500 new soldiers for peacekeeping assignments and quadruples funding for wind energy.

Expected to be released on Thursday, the Liberal platform includes $27 billion over five years on various commitments, with a remaining annual budget reserve of $3 billion.

The Liberal document, called Moving Canada Forward, intends to spell out the differences between the Liberal's platform and that of the other parties, said Liberal Leader Paul Martin.

"Essentially we're answering two questions: One of them is…where we want to see Canada, what kind of Canada we want to have," Martin said in Winnipeg.

"And second, I think that by its very nature, our platform will demonstrate the very great differences between ourselves and our opponents."

The Liberal platform defines Canada's peacekeeping role and beefs up the Canadian Forces and Armed Forces Reserve.

The platform proposes a Quebec-style national child-care system and promises to invest more money in the Wind Power Production Incentive to promote alternative fuel options.

The Liberals would also increase venture capital resources to help commercialize and turn profits from the high-tech research going on in Canadian universities and create research commercialization centres across Canada, said a Canadia Press report.

The Liberals will unveil their platform Thursday morning at the Cleary International Centre in Windsor, Ontario, Martin's city of birth.

_________________________________

I'm assuming we will afford this all by having the soldiers run the day-care system.

Hey, I think it would serve multiple services: increased military presence, a more disciplined younger generation... and that's about it.

	03-06-2004 11:24									#401
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Expected to be released on Thursday, the Liberal platform includes $27 billion over five years on various commitments, with a remaining annual budget reserve of $3 billion.

Sorry, I can't help myself. You should see the numbers they use when describing our budget

	03-06-2004 11:25									#402
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich I see your point, I just don't understand how it's an objection. Surely at least partial representation of minorities is better than none, and it's equally obvious that those minorities that need such a veto (assuming you already have requirements similar to ours wrt amending your constitution) are going to be in the same region, given that the main reason this representation is needed is to prevent massively unfair wealth redistribution.

How do you know that the minorities which need protecting are in small states? Why is there more chance of them being in small states than in big ones? Especially when certain states (California and New York spring to mind) are very big in population but have vast, relatively less-populated hinterlands which in most ways demographically resemble smaller states surrounding them. Why does Rhode Island deserve the status of protected minority (when it so strongly resembles Massachusets and other New England states) when rural New York does not (when its interests might often conflict with the urbanized portions of the state). An even better example is in Canada, where almost the whole population of Ontario is in the urbanised southeast and the north and west resemble much more strongly the very type of minority you claim the Senate system protects.

The fact is that minorities exist spread across all jurisdictions. The fact that they take up an entire state is what draws attention to certain ones, and leads to this misguided attempt to balance the power of the "big states". You should stop thinking about states as monolithic entities with a single viewpoint (exemplified by the idea of states as sovereign signatories to a union). This historical reality is long gone (and in Canada never existed). Americans (and Canadians) may take up residence in any jurisdiction in their country without seeking the approval of the jurisdiction in question. As long as this freedom of movement is allowed and is practiced, a citizen is a citizen is a citizen.

quote: And your point is... would you call the people who wrote the American Constitution "anti-democracy"? I'm in fact espousing a position significantly closer to yours than theirs, given how far the balance of power has shifted between the State and Federal governments.

I'm saying that for the time they were pro-democracy. In the modern world their view of government would be distinctly feudal. I would hope we've made progress since then.

quote: How is it different under a system with a senate and a system without one? OBVIOUSLY a minority government will have difficulty passing things - but the existance of a bicameral legislature doesn't change this, except inasmuch as it makes ALL legislation more difficult to pass.

NOT TRUE. Minority governments are weaker by their very nature than are other governments. There is far less chance of them being able to push legislation through two houses than there is of a majority government being able to do so, and this difference is much more pronounced than in a unicameral system. This is why I ask that you study the actual functioning of non-American government systems instead of just the theory.

quote: But a constitution protecting rights and freedoms is liberal in the original sense of the word.

What's much more important (in this discussion) than the content of the constitution is the process by which it is amended. No matter what is contained in the constitution, if it takes a supermajority to amend it then it is a conservative document, as it tends to maintain the status quo.

	03-06-2004 11:26									#403
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich quote: Expected to be released on Thursday, the Liberal platform includes $27 billion over five years on various commitments, with a remaining annual budget reserve of $3 billion. Sorry, I can't help myself. You should see the numbers they use when describing our budget

Probably just about ten times as large. Except that we live within our means.

	03-06-2004 11:26									#404
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

About Harper's Navy, see:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=968350116795

Harper wants an 80,000-person military, up from 52,000 today. He'd retrofit aging CF-18 warplanes, replace antique destroyers with new warships, buy several supply ships and some heavy tanks. And on the costlier side he'd purchase two helicopter aircraft carriers to ferry troops and armour to hot spots, and strategic lift aircraft to get troops there even faster.

Reuters story calls them "hybrid maritime carriers" (Damm it, we need carriers for the Great Lakes and to stop them Saskatchewan pirates!)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N31220066.htm

	03-06-2004 11:30									#405
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse How do you know that the minorities which need protecting are in small states? Why is there more chance of them being in small states than in big ones?

Did you miss the part about wealth redistribution?

quote: Especially when certain states (California and New York spring to mind) are very big in population but have vast, relatively less-populated hinterlands which in most ways demographically resemble smaller states surrounding them.

And all those areas have to worry about are being exploited within their state, so the federal government has nothing to do with it.

quote: The fact is that minorities exist spread across all jurisdictions. The fact that they take up an entire state is what draws attention to certain ones, and leads to this misguided attempt to balance the power of the "big states".

See above. Diversity within a state is handled within a state.

quote: I'm saying that for the time they were pro-democracy. In the modern world their view of government would be distinctly feudal. I would hope we've made progress since then.

feudal?

quote: NOT TRUE. Minority governments are weaker by their very nature than are other governments. There is far less chance of them being able to push legislation through two houses than there is of a majority government being able to do so, and this difference is much more pronounced than in a unicameral system.

How? They are both equally hindered by a bicameral system.

quote: What's much more important (in this discussion) than the content of the constitution is the process by which it is amended. No matter what is contained in the constitution, if it takes a supermajority to amend it then it is a conservative document, as it tends to maintain the status quo.

Touché

	03-06-2004 11:32									#406
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ahhh, helicopter 'aircraft carriers'. Nice try.

btw, why is the Star the only one to report that? I haven't found that on CTV or CBC yet.

	03-06-2004 11:32									#407
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai About Harper's Navy, see: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=968350116795 Harper wants an 80,000-person military, up from 52,000 today. He'd retrofit aging CF-18 warplanes, replace antique destroyers with new warships, buy several supply ships and some heavy tanks. And on the costlier side he'd purchase two helicopter aircraft carriers to ferry troops and armour to hot spots, and strategic lift aircraft to get troops there even faster. Reuters story calls them "hybrid maritime carriers" (Damm it, we need carriers for the Great Lakes and to stop them Saskatchewan pirates!) http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N31220066.htm

So basically, make it a stronger support for the American military?

	03-06-2004 11:36									#408
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Harper also wants Parliament to "ratify" overseas combat missions. That's worth talking about. While the Prime Minister must retain the final responsibility for sending troops abroad as an elected head of government, he should consult Parliament and poll MPs on their views. In all, the Tories have put forward an ambitious but credible program, assuming they can reconcile it with the big tax cuts they promise, without savaging other priorities. That's a big "if," and one the Liberals will be sure to challenge. Yesterday Martin suggested Harper's program is an overly costly "Cold War" strategy that doesn't reflect Canada's changing role in a 9/11 world, or public concern that health is the chief priority. Still, both sides agree that the Canadian Forces must be able to fight, and prevail, when need be. And that more money is needed.

Yes, he must have flipped his wig.

	03-06-2004 11:37									#409
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich quote: Expected to be released on Thursday, the Liberal platform includes $27 billion over five years on various commitments, with a remaining annual budget reserve of $3 billion. Sorry, I can't help myself. You should see the numbers they use when describing our budget

You do realise that this is talking about new spending not the entire budget, eh.

And the Libs would still maintain a $40+ billion surplus. You remember the word surplus. It's been a while since your government has had one so I wouldn't be surprised if you problably forgot what it means.

	03-06-2004 11:38									#410
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Yes, he must have flipped his wig.

If he wants to buy any type of carriers, then yes, he's flipped his wig.

Retuers has a report. See my edited last post.

	03-06-2004 11:45									#411
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai If he wants to buy any type of carriers, then yes, he's flipped his wig. Retuers has a report. See my edited last post.

Are you campaining FOR him?

quote: The United States and NATO have chided Canada for having let its defense budget slip in proportion to the size of the economy to the second lowest level in the alliance, ahead only of Luxembourg. Standing outside the Trenton Air Force Base in eastern Ontario, Harper pledged to restore the size of the military to 80,000 trained personnel from 53,200 currently, though reaching only 65,000 by the end of his first term. He promised to inject an immediate C$1.2 billion ($900 million) a year into equipment replacement, with a longer-term goal of moving toward the NATO European average of defense spending. The current defense budget is C$13.3 billion. Harper also said he would buy tanks, reversing a Liberal decision to abandon them, and buy new hybrid maritime carriers for helicopter support and lift.

If he can reequip the Forces and give them the needed transport capacity to be able to go where NATO or the UN need us without American charity, and keep us at or near the NATO average for expenditures, he would be doing very well indeed.

	03-06-2004 11:48									#412
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

btw, Tingkai. Those are glorified transport ships that are being mentioned. They are NOT CVNs.

	03-06-2004 11:50									#413
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither If he can reequip the Forces and give them the needed transport capacity to be able to go where NATO or the UN need us without American charity, and keep us at or near the NATO average for expenditures, he would be doing very well indeed.

Sure, we need to beef up the Forces, but what the hell are we going to do with helicopter carriers. If you want to transport helicopters then equip the existing fleet with new ones, or yes, buy strategic transport planes that can carry them, or failing that you lease an ordinary cargo ship.

But to spend billions building helicopter carriers and paying to keep these ships operational is just stupid.

	03-06-2004 11:55									#414
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why? What is the crew? What is the cost of each ship? How much to maintain? Is it assured that they would be purchased if DND advised him there were higher priorities?

In what way would be being based off on floating bases enhance Canadian operations in problem spots for the UN and allow rapid deployment of reinforcements, or evacuation of endangered troops if the situation demanded it?

What do you know about it, other than the Conservatives are stupid and you want us all to throw rocks at them?

	03-06-2004 12:01									#415
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Did you miss the part about wealth redistribution?

I saw it.

a) I just don't believe that this one brand of oppression is so much more important than any other brand that you need to design an entire government system around it

b) Again, you missed the part where I mentioned that the small Canadian provinces are actually the largest per-capita recipients of the federal government's largesse

c) How come a small piece of a state is not to be afraid of these wealth redistributions and only whole states get protection from them? Take Silicon Valley or some other anomalous region inside a state

quote: And all those areas have to worry about are being exploited within their state, so the federal government has nothing to do with it.

Why not? The Federal government may exploit them as well. States are not uniform blocs of interest. Some are. Some (especially the ones that are already disenfranchised by the US system) are very much not.

quote: feudal?

You can laugh all you want, but the word is very appropriate here. The government of 1789 was very much controlled by the landed aristocracy of the US. The Senate viewed themselves as peers of the realm (sometimes even more than this; there are a few anecdotes about this). The franchise was limited to perhaps 20-25% of the total adult population (not that much larger a base than in England at the time).

quote: How? They are both equally hindered by a bicameral system.

NO THEY AREN'T. Minority governments barely pass legislation through one house. They will never get it through two houses. I can guarantee you that if we had a similar Senate to the US we never would have passed the legislation we did under minority governments. There is a correllation between strength in the upper and lower houses, but it is not strong enough to guarantee that a political alliance in the lower house will be strong enough in the upper house to pass bills, especially when they pass by the skin of their teeth in the lower house. A strong majority will likely be strong enough to pass most of its legislation in both houses, so the second house is almost no obstacle. As the majority gets slimmer and slimmer the chances of passing a bill which is at all controversial diminish far more rapidly than in a unicameral system.

	03-06-2004 12:02									#416
	Get a bigger avatar today!

NYE, use your head. If you have a new type of ship then you need to train specialised crews for the ship.

What are the operational costs. Well they ain't free.

And since when have the politicians ever listened to DND.

When Canada is involved in UN operations then by definition we have access to land bases. If the area is hostile and our forces have to be at see then we need more ships to protect the carriers. More money.

If you need to move in or evacuate troops, the best way to do it is with tactical or strategic transport, not helicopters.

Any person with an ounce of common sense would realise that this is a crazy idea. Canada does not have the financial resources to maintain a naval carriers. We have no need for them.

	03-06-2004 12:08									#417
	Support Apolyton

Tingkai, use your head. You first reported this as Aircraft Carriers. What do you know about it, aside from just about zero?

If the UN is something we want to support, what will do that? Are frigates and CF-18's effective peace-keepers? Or are boots on the ground needed?

If a ship can get boots on the ground, and support them, how is that not in keeping with Canadian priorities for the military?

I will admit, I assume that Harper would not do something DND told him was stupid. Call me an optimist.

	03-06-2004 12:12									#418
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse I saw it. a) I just don't believe that this one brand of oppression is so much more important than any other brand that you need to design an entire government system around it

Everything else can easily be provided for constitutionally.

quote: b) Again, you missed the part where I mentioned that the small Canadian provinces are actually the largest per-capita recipients of the federal government's largesse

Which is obviously accepted by the larger states, so it's OK.

quote: c) How come a small piece of a state is not to be afraid of these wealth redistributions and only whole states get protection from them? Take Silicon Valley or some other anomalous region inside a state

Because a state is treated as a whole - the federal government doesn't set policy for individual parts of a state. Any redistribution to be feared is within the state and beyond the scope of the federal government.

quote: You can laugh all you want, but the word is very appropriate here. The government of 1789 was very much controlled by the landed aristocracy of the US. The Senate viewed themselves as peers of the realm (sometimes even more than this; there are a few anecdotes about this). The franchise was limited to perhaps 20-25% of the total adult population (not that much larger a base than in England at the time).

That has nothing to do with "feudalism".

quote: NO THEY AREN'T. Minority governments barely pass legislation through one house. They will never get it through two houses.

Exactly my point - they're harmed equally.

quote: As the majority gets slimmer and slimmer the chances of passing a bill which is at all controversial diminish far more rapidly than in a unicameral system.

That's the entire frigging point. You generally will have to get some people on both sides to agree about something before it goes through, which will result in legislation acceptable to a much larger number of people and less likely to infringe on anyone.

	03-06-2004 12:12									#419
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Harper with a military would be JAB: Just Another Blair

He wanted us in Iraq. 80% of us think we dodged a bullet on that one. I wouldn't want him to have access to any more toys to get us in trouble with. Point finale.

	03-06-2004 12:13									#420
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Good point. The Yanks were wrong and some believed them. We should disarm in that case.