Black Dog

If I read the words "love fest" one more time, I'm gonna scream.

And the remaining $6 billion will come from...where? The $50 billion figure is from Cons' claim they will cap the rate of spending increases at 2.9% per annum over the next five years. Of course, that doesn't account for increasing program costs (like health care, where costs are increasing across the board), increased spending and decreased revenues that a Conservative government would bring in and is based on a wildly optimistic surplus estimates. And Harper has an economics degree?! Anti-French bigot! Harper would have had Canadian soldiers coming back from Iraq in metal boxes. He'd turn our military into a U.S. proxy force, loaded with expensive gadgets that will enhance our ability to jump when Harper's masters say so. This has nothing to do with "anti-Americanism" (whatever that means) and everything to do with Harper's idealogical alignment.

There's nothing in the ND's platform to indicate it would bypass the provinces when providing funding for cities. Now, there's no mention at all of what kind of role the provinces would have, but I think it's a sin of ommission rather than one of malicious intent towards the provinces. Perhaps not. But that doesn't change the fact they are a "special interest group" lobbying for policy changes that will affect all Canadians. August, you make these kinds of assertions without any statistical proof at all. Anyone can tell you taht municipalities need sustainable funding. The provinces simply can't provide that alone. In areas like the fuel tax, the GST, infrastructure, housing, transit, it's the feds that are in the best position to help.

I don't think the debate changed many minds. The core support for the parties has long been shored up, a few previously undecideds will decide, and most Canadians will vote with their feet: by putting them on the coffee table and staying home. On the debate: Harper was, well, Stephen Harper. A suit and a plastic haircut. No emotion, no conviction. certainly did nothing to dispel the fears around him. And he got creamed on the Iraq issue. Martin: defensive, but scored some good shots (Harper's $50 million black hole and his admission that he could have swept the sponsiorship business under the rug). Layton: wild and energetic, which he had to be in what the media is framing as a two horse race. Good work on pointing out the essential non-difference between the Liberals and Cons. Duceppe: I like this guy more the more I see of him. I wonder if we could get a BQ/ND coalition together... Under Harper, we'd not be a whore, but a slut: giving it a way for free. Duceppe's line about not droppping to our knees for our allies was gold. Harper might not run a defecit, but he'd slash the hell out of social programs to fill the massive holes in his budget. Harper, it should never be forgotten, is from the school of economic "thought' that would" make government so small as to drown it in a bathtub.

Is anyone actually advocating this? Harper's one to talk of interest groups, having fronted one of the biggest special interest lobbies in the nation. But as for municipal politicians, the 90s were an era of unprecedented spending cuts at all levels. The feds cut transfers to the provinces and downloaded many responsibilities on to provincial governments, which had a trickle down effect on Canada's cities. The meager increases, both federally and provincially, haven't come close to restoring municipalities to their former strength, despite the fact that municipalities are the level of government that has the most impact on people's day to day lives. I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring creative solutions. Both Martin and Layton have called for a new deal for municipalities, and I'm sur emost provincial politicians would argue. What they would argue about is how big a cut the provinces pocket. That's why we need Proportional Representation.

You consitently downplayed the severeity of the allegations: When viewed in the light of these statements, your condemnations come across as less than sincere. The policy is, as one U.S. officer put it: "do what you must, grab who you can." I don't believe it when, by the Army's own admission, at least 70 per cent of detainees are innocent of any wrong doing. I don't know how long it's going to take you to grasp this. But torture and torture-lite do not produce reliable information. Torturing Can't be Defended, Doesn't Even Work As I've said before, you maintain an unquestioning and impenetrable faith in the intententions of leaders and the system as a whole. Anything more than half-assed, mealy mouthed equivocation is, apparently, irrational "frothing at the mouth." You're missing the big picture: the U.S. is heading down a path whereby its leaders are unaccountable to anyone, and unbound by conventions of international or domestic law. Or perhaps you do, but you seem untroubled by it. Look at the document the Pentagon cooked up: on the face of it, is a charter allowing the US president to abuse human rights and ignore domestic as well as international law. According to the Rumsfeld document, detainees can be tortured at will in Bush's global "war" on terrorism. And, as history shows, occasional torture leads to more extreme, systematic torture. Nope. I just think your faith is misguided. U.S. Troops Said to Mistreat Elder Iraqi/Rode Old Lady Like A Donkey

Well, American involvement with Afghanistan's mujahadeen rebels is well-documented. Those same rebels morphed into the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973 Friends in Deed: The United States and Iraq Before the Persian Gulf War

Interesting response. This report was touted (notably by you) as an indication that the Bush administration's terror war policies were working. Subsequent evidence shows the opposite is true. This is a major mistake, and yet the very same person who trotted the report out in the first place now trie sto dopwnplay its significance and deflect attention elsewhere. To wit: Of course, anyone with half a brain would know that U.S. policies (like those pushed as part of the "war on terror") have greater significance and a far greater impact, both domestically and globally than those of any other nation on earth. For example, America's crusade against terrorism has led to numerous abrogations of commonly accepted precepts of international law (notably the widely understood principle of using force only in self-defense and repeated violations of the Geneva Convention). These have very serious consequenses and set very serious precedents. So, when evidence comes to light that these policies aren't working, you're damn right we'll point the finger where it needs to be pointed, regardless of feeble equivocations from apologists.

You know KK, on matters of "what is torture" I'll defer to the definition set down by international law and confirmed by the Red Cross (again "practices tantamount to torture") than to your half-baked atempts to downplay U.S. actions (In my book, beatings, rape, murder-all documented behaviors at Abu Ghirab and Gitmo- are far more serious than your constant refrain of "wearing women's underwear" would indicate). Heck, for bonus "torture apologist" points, you managed to invoke the "ticking time bomb scenario" to justify torture, despite the fact such scenarios are, at best, far-fetched. Finally, even if we were to accept, for a second, that torture can be justified under certain circumstances, the simple fact remains that torture methods fail to produce reliable information. I was wrong when I said people like you couldn't see the rot infecting your nation. You're actually part of it.

To people who support a viable system of social services, equality, peace, the seperation of church and state, economic policies that benefit the majority of Canadians, independant foreign policy, a clean environment and so on, the Conservatives are dangerous. You don't need to trot out bogus "subliminal messages" to show that.

You FDers know subliminal mesages don't work, right? So sayeth Snopes.

That's why bias becomes so dangerous: when people pay little attention to public issues, they're much more likely to base their decison on a sound bite or headline. Which would explain why the Cons, who've coasted along in a media love-in have polled so well. By the way, tonerguy, who's behind that web site? I smell a Heritage Front rat...

No. During war there are certain standards of conduct that are to be observed, standards that, in this case, were agreed upon by the U.S. military and subsequently (and systematically) violated by using what the Red Cross called "practices tantamount to torture". Now, you may be willing to whitewash all the sins away by saying "bad things happen in war", but the fact is these occurances were beyond the standard of acceptable combat in war time. You may wish to justift it further by shiftying attention elsewhere, but the fact remains: these violations were given the green light by senior officials and were part of a systematic campaign of abuse that stretched from Afghanistan, to Iraq and to Cuba. So, you can take a look at the evidence of high-level knowledge of the torture, from Rumsfeld to Ashcroft and possibly to Bush, the fact techniques used in Iraq are being used in Afghanistan and Gitmo and still swallow the tripe about "a few bad apples" and regurgitate it without batting an eye? Incredible. I don't know how you do it. And it just keeps coming. Take a look at the memo posted by o.i.c. above. Or read the article from the WSJ. Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture This is seriously scary stuff. It seems the Bushites are trying to set up a kind of a authoritarian State with power emanating from the leader at the top and unencumbered by checks from other branches of government or, the people. But folks like KK won't (or can't) see the rot that is infecting the American republic. To them, the word of the U.S. government is on par with the word of God: America's motives are unquestionably pure (save for a few "mistakes"), any deviance from the orthodoxy is "anti-Americanism".

Bump! Terrorism report wrong. Report "big mistake": Powell

That's bull. There's information out there, but not everyone has access to it. For instance, conrast the low rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortions in Europe, where comprehensive sex ed is the norm, with the rates in North America (espcially the USA, where abstinence-only sex ed dominates). MEN SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PRACTICE SAFE SEX AND PREVENT UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES. Let me put it another way: where do women wear condoms? It's one thing to hold people accountable. But the idea of making women pay men money for children they won't have is a punitive measure by any standard. Your first sentence should read: "Do you call it punishment when men have no choice in whether or not the woman has a child..." It's not punishment, it's acknowledging, again, the women's right to control her own reproductive and sexual fate. Do men sometimes lose out? Yes. But that's the price we have to pay. The alternative is forcing women to have children against their will (a revolting concept in a free society). I wasn't talking about pregnant people , I was, in the context of the discussion, talking about single parent. And yeah, I consider people who are pilloried and victimized by society for mistakes or for exercising their individual rights to be less fortunate. So what, you think kids know the consequenses and are simply choosing pregnancy and STDS? C'mon, man! The problem is this: we have a society where the media and popular culture glorify sex, and a political and educational culture that tries to mystify and vilify it (the SuperBowl boob furor being aprime example of North America's thouroughly puritan attitudes towards sex). Kids are exposed to both and, consequentially, are confused by the conflicting messages. Basically, I think pregnancy and the decision to see a pregnancy to term or not has a far greater impact on women than men, which is why, when the women's right to choose clashes with a man's wishes, we defer to the women. I understand the unfairness of forcing men to pay for children they do not want, but I don't see any practical way to address that (barring giving men uteruses). I can kinda see giving men the option to choose not to be a father by relinquishing custodial rights, within a specified time frame of discovering the pregnancy, if he does not want the child and the mother chooses to keep the baby. But that doesn't take th eneeds of the child into account (then again, I wouldn't agree with someone who opted to have a child they could not support). But I thinking the idea of making women pay is, as I said, ridiculous.

Just to recap, here's your earlier post: You're not basing your conclusion on any actual facts, but are speculating based on assumption and a single, 25 year old, case. Abortion and breast cancer Most recently, in May 2003, the National Cancer Institute concluded that earlier studies that had suggested a connection between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer were flawed. The newest, most scientifically reliable studies have consistently showed no association between abortion and breast cancer risk. Oh yes, because the same people who oppose choice are also at the forefront of enhanced sex ed programs, right? I'd like to see some actual solid evidence of early-stage abortion drugs like RU486 being marketed as birth control. What exactly does the increased incidence of child abuse have to do with abortion? Straw man. First: you're theory requires that I bel;eive abortion is murder. It is not. What I do beleive is that unwanted children are often uncared-for, unloved, , or confined to lives of, yes, poverty or abandonment. This is not good for children, for families, or for the country. The abortion issue is another example of the rank hypocrisy of the right-wing. The right-wing would call for limitations or a ban on abortions, but oppose sexual education programs that would reduce unwanted pregnancies, especially among young people. As well, the right wing agenda trends to focus on characterizations of "single mothers on welfare" as symbols and causes of society's failures, which bolsters the right's agenda of cuts to social programs that help the underpriviledged. Bottom line: while many anti-abortion types certainly have real, moral misgivings about the issue, much of the anti-abortion agenda is driven by those who would deny women control of their reproductive destiny as a means of maintaining and excrabating social and economic inequalities and reinforcing the entrenched hierarchy.

There's no way you could "rid us of abortion death". Less than one in 100 abortions results in serious complications, and less than one in 100,000 abortions have complications that result in death. Many counselling centre are also known to utilize tactics such as offering free pregnancy tests but giving ambiguous answers about the results, showing shocking and deceptive films or slide shows, attempting to induce guilt by engaging women in discussions about their religious views and beliefs, refusing or failing to provide contraceptive information, and making exaggerated promises of financial assistance. It's a given that if abortion is legal and, therefore, easier to obtain, the numbers would increase from when it was illegal and less accessable. Since the U.S. mortality rate for pregnancy is 7.5 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live-births (CDC, 1999). The current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestation is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. Therefore, abortion is statistically safer than carrying a child to term. I don't have time to check out all your medical claims, but this is one persistant myth that I can address . I'm not the one who brought up the financial costs of abortion. Again: an increase in the number of abortions following legalisation is entirely logical. As to the 72 per cent who would not have had abortions, we'd instead have a 72 per cent increase in unwanted children and the accompanying ill effects.

Hey you know what a good way to reduce the number of single-parent homes? Easy access to abortion and contraceptive information, thing is right now there's no such things. As for society punishing individuals for choices by witholding support, well, I think a dog-eat-dog society like that is not worth living in. I also find it sad how quickly people turn on the less fortunate members of society and blame them for many ills. Like you've never made bad choices? Contrary to what you might think, it's not that easy. Look at the States, where sex ed is predominately faith-based, with a focus on abstinence, which fails to give kids the knowledge they need. Meanwhile the media is full of conflicting messages and false information on sexuality, making it hard for kids to get an education. So I don't think the right information is getting out. I don't think it should be. If a man gets a woman pregnant, the child is his responsibility too, whether he wanted it or not. If a woman chooses to end the pregnancy, what is the man responisble for? No rights exist without responsibility. The idea of punishing women for making reproductive choices is not creating a level playing field. I don't understand how you could justify making women pay for children they didn't or won't have. It's ridiculous. There's good reasons women have the ultimate say in whether or not to have kids. First, it's their body and no man should be able to dictate what she does with it. As well, women are the ones who have to carry the kids and raise them: so yeah, I think they should get more say. As for the rest, ae you saying men have no choice in contraception or abstinence? Men have choices and responsibility fo rpreventing unwanted pregnancies too. You are correct. Fetuses are living organisms, in much the same way as single cells are living organisms. Your link is full of errors, such as the contention that a fetus canfeel pain at 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. No, much of the "screaming" is because of the profusion of anti-abortion "counselling centres". You should try carrrying a child for 9 months, since you figure its such a piece of cake. Abortions will still happen, legal or not. Legal abortion safeguards women's health and safety. In Alberta, at least, vasectomy's are covered by health care. That should be up to the individual, not the state, to seek counselling. I'd be willing to bet that the costs of abortion pales in comparison to the costs society would incur if abortions were not legal. If abortions weren't publically funded, it would drive women, especially those with low-incomes, to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions, while wealthier ones can travel wherever necessary to obtain a safe abortion. So abortions do save lives. By your numbers, illegal abortions, cost thousands of lives. If abortion had not been legalised in 1973, as of 2004, 5,250 women would have died as a result of obtaining abortions, versus about 525 deaths from the legal variety. And when is that? Is it the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg? When the fertilized ovum implanted on the uterine wall? At what magic point does a single cell becoem a full-blown human life, complete with all inherent rights?

There's no scientific consensus as to whether or not a fetus is considered a living organism, so to call a unborn fetus a "child" is misleading. Indeed, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all abortions - 98.6 percent -occur during the first half of pregnancy. Most (88 percent) take place during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Half of all abortions occur within the first eight weeks, during stages where the fetus is nothing but an undeveloped lump of tissue. Oh really? Can you cite me some examples, either from the media or personal experience? I suspect this is just one of those things that get repeated so often that it becomes conventional wisdom. I've known women who've had abortions. It's not an experience any of them treat casually or would want to go through again. It is true that we can reduce the number of abortions by insuring that everyone has all the reproductive health services and information they need, so that they can access and use contraception consistently and correctly. Don't forget, though, that many groups and individuals that oppose the right to choose abortion are also working to reduce the availability of contraception and sexuality education (like George W. Bush signing the first federal abortion ban while pumping money into wrongheaded absetinence only sex education programs). So I trust you support government funded comprehensive sex education programs that discuss all aspects of sexual health, and all reproductive options, including abstinence, contraception, abortion, adoption, and childbirth starting at the elementary school level? How about a national day care program so that single parents can find work to support their kids and stay off the welfare rolls? I find it interesting that you want women who get abortions to pay, while men who duck their responsibilites should be shielded by law. Also, the idea that "women should pay for their actions" not only reeks of misogyny, but also of a twisted world where society punishes those for their mistakes and choices (even if those choices are within the boundaries of legally acceptable behavior). What's that about? If a man doesn't want a kid, he should consider that before sleeping with someone. If he does, he should probably discuss it with the woman (seeing as how she, you know, would carry the thing for 9 months, as well as being the primary caretaker).

How much say a man has depends on the individual relationships. However, it's the woman's body and, ultimately, her choice. You have to realize where the right to choose fits in the broader context of women's rights. Reproductive freedom is fundamental to women's aspirations for education, financial stability and independance, and self-determination. As Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun said: "...Millions of women, and their families, have ordered their lives around the right to reproductive choice, and that this right has become vital to the full participation of women in the economic and political walks of American life." —

Because democracy, by definition, demands respect for human dignity and rights.Because comparing the actions of Israel (a country who's abuses and crimes are facilitated and given tacit approval by the west: that is to say, us) to those of countries like Syria is misleading, as it downplays the significance of abuses and crimes committed by Israel. It becomes a shell game ("Hey look over there! Those guys are worse!") or a comparasin ("Sure , Israel's bad, but they're better than the two bit thugocracy next door.") which doesn't do their cause any favours. After all, I would hope a nation as advanced as Israel, with a stated commitment to liberal democratic values, would at least measure up to the standards of a place like Syria.I guess the question to ask is: are war crimes and crimes against humanity to be tolerated because it's one of "our guys" that's committing them? Because Israel is a self-styled democracy allied with western interests, we should look away? In a perfect world, of course, there would be zero tolerance for any abuse of human rights. However, in Israel's case, such abuses are enabled by our own national governments, which is a cause for concern. Western governments need to stop tolerating human rights violations wherever they occur. And they should certainly stop enabling them. No kidding, seeing as how I linked to the Media Release sections of the web sites. I wasn't trying to make a comment on anything but the notion that: The pages I linked to indicate that Syria does get attention from human rights organizations.

How would a drug with no proven negative long-term effects damage our health care system?

Amnesty International: Syria Human Rights Watch: Syria I think the notion that Israel receives a disproportinate amount of attention from human rights campaigners is a canard. Israel does receieve more attention in the media, howver, for reasons I'm not entirely sure of. I maintain, however, that a democratic nation of the kind Israel claims to be, should be held to a higher standard than a dictatorship like Syria. Palestinians deaths outstrip Israeli deaths by a 3 to 1 ratio. There's a solution: end the military occupation and create a single, secular, egalitarian, democracy for Jews and Palestinians. You're a intelligent guy, Argus: surely you can see how one could lead to the other. The difference is negligible. If you fire a gun into a crowd of people, you can reasonably expect to hit someone and would be considered responsible for any harm caused, as surely as if you were aiming at a specific target , but hit someone else instead. Similarily, if a helicopter fires high-explosive rockets into a apartment building or at a mosque afte rmorning prayers, there's a reasonable expectation that people other than the intended target will come to harm. Therefore, the people who fired teh rockets (and those who gave the orders to do so) are responsible for harm that comes to any innocent bystanders. They've fired tank shells and missiles into crowds of demonstrators. Is that close enough? But this isn't a discussion that belongs here. if anyone wants to continue this in International politics, I'm game.

Can you back this up with a source? What a load. Ever heard the schoolyard phrase that starts with "Sticks and stones..."?

I was racking my memory trying to find out where you got the quote "during the 20th century". Then I see it was from the IMF report I linked to earlier. You're mis-attributing statements to me that I did not make, but came from sources I merely offered up for information. So, I haven't changed my argument at all. You just don't know how to read. As for colonialism, the first person to mentuon it was you, who pulled the "globalisation=colonialism" argument from thin air, then claimed I said it. Since it's becoming clear that you will stoop to any depth to avoid acknowledging any of my points (including fabricating statements I did no make) or discussing the actual substance of the issues at hand (you're argument thus far has consisted mostly of weasely attempts to catch me in rhetorical traps of your own creation) I don't see the point in continuing.