Black Dog

"Jealousy, thy name is Canada" is the heading of Don Martin's article today in answer to your calling it screwbally & whismical . "Canada is bloody jealous!" he goes on to say. I agree! Tha Alaskans have enjoyed this whismical distribution of excess oil revenues among all it's citizenry ever since 1982. And I'm not talking a piddly $400 apiece here. This year they'll get over $1100. 2000 was their banner year, that's when they all pocketed a whooping $2400 plus. Now that's something to write home about. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don Martin...isn't that the fella from MAD Magazine? Oh, and noobie: most of the people on this thread who are saying this is a bad idea are Albertans.

Except "healthcare" premiums don't pay for health care. They get sucked into general revenue. Right. I can also put it towards my credit card debt or a go on a shopping spree. But I expect the government to have some sort of fiscal plan, one that guarantees sustainability. Not help me update my wardrobe. Eliminating premiums altogether would give every Albertan an extra $500 a year, every year, which would surely be of greater benefit to the economy than a one-time present from Uncle Ralph. I agree that it would be silly to cut taxes only to raise them if things go south. However, I think healthcare premiums are the exception. I'd also like to see them get the province's infratruructure to a level where, if the economy somehow does tank, we don't slide any further into debt. Think of it this way: its best to spend money you have on things you need when you have the money to spend. What got me was that it seems kind of ridiculous to make the total lack of vision or tforethought the program's selling point. Throwing money at people may work for Ralph when he's door crashing the Bissel Centre, but it's not a substitute for policy.

First: satire should contain at least a minimum of irony or wit. Simply spewing an extreme interpretation of your opponnent's viewpoints is not satire. Second: it should go without saying, but Canada's entry into World War 2 and the U.S.'s decision to invade Iraq are completely non-analagous situations. In the former case, we had the demonstrable threat of a powerful military force bent on expansion, domination and extermination, a threat that initiated the conflict by attacking its neighbours without warning and without justification. In the latter case, we have a small, militarily weak nation, run by an odious but enfeebled dictator, devastated by war and contained by sanctions which was set upon by the most powerful nation in the world. Apples and oranges. Certainly you can quibble over whether Canada was justified in joining the war (IMO, it was, as the threat of fascism to humankind was great enough to warrant a response), but there's no comparison between the situations.

There's no way a cokehead should be Premier of Quebec. Make him President of the United States! (People were actually doing blow in the late 90's? I know it's enjoyed a comeback recently, but back then it would have seemed so...retro. Like wearing a blazer with the sleeves rolled up.)

Stop trolling, troll.

I wonder what "solid reporting" they had...the same kind that led them to the massive stockpiles of WMD (oops!)? That showed 9-11 hijackers meeting Iraqi agents in Pargue (nope!) Conclusion: without knowing exactly what intelligence they're talking about and knowing the qualityof intelligence they were using in the run up to the war (what's up, "Curveball"?) and then taking into account the administration's reluctance to paint anything more than tenuous links to the two subsequent to the war, the only reasonable conclusion is that the evidence does not support any solid, collaborative relationship between the two. Or, in the words of the British Foreign Office "U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing." This conclusion is supported by the Senate's report on the pre-war intelligence on Iraq, which states:

Oh I think you downplayed it plenty: It sure looks to me like you're taking all the credit (the Soviet's, not the Americans, took Berlin). Wikipedia is your friend.

I don't know if "taken too much" is the right way to put it, given Alberta's (on-paper, anyway) low income taxes, etc. (And yes, premiums are a tax, I agree, and a regressive one at that). So if they want to put mor emoney into people's pockets, knock that ridiculous measure on the head. And maybe get out of the education property tax game too. As for the fiscal management skills of the Klein Tories, well, i think this scheme says it all: "Ralph! Ralph! It's a gusher! What shoudl we do with all this money?" "Shit, I dunno. Uh....write some cheques?" "Great idea, boss!" My understanding is everyone gets one, whether they rent or own. As for the kids getting it, well, there'll be a lot of kids thanking Uncle Ralph for their new X-Box come Chirstmas time.

Health care premiums are the first thing I thought of when this cockamamie scheme was announced. I wonder how many people are gonna have to roll this "prosperity rebate" into that particular tax? But tax cuts? Alberta already has the lowest tax rates in the country (or so we're told). And in any case, cutting taxes now assumes this current boom is going to be a permanent state of affairs. Should the government cut taxes only to have oil prices fall, that may force a reversal of the tax cuts folks are clamouring for now. Here's a wacky notion: why not actually re-invest the money in the province, starting with economic diversification or infrastructure funding (Alberta has a $8 billion infrastructure debt) Or how about a high-speed Edmonton-Calgary rail link? Property taxes are a municipal responsibility. Should the business owner get more? *Update* "All I can say to the rest of Canada is remember that we aren't investing this in ongoing programs and program development,"(Klein) said. Now that's leadership folks!

It's war... ...and they're looking for a few good men.

I don't see what the U.S. contribution to the Allied victory 60 years ago has to do with the here and now. I do see a lot of attempts to downplay the U.S. contributions, which I suspect is a reaction to the kind of thinking expressed above and repeated endlessly in our popular culture which states that it was the Americans alone who won the war. Objectively speaking, if anyone deserves credit for breaking the back of the Nazi war machine, it is the Soviets, who fought longer and harder than anyone else against Germany (inflicting about 80% of losses suffered by German land forces in World War II), for which they paid an astonishing price.

Another sad, lingering case of Clinton Deraignment Syndrome.

You're the one who brought cartels into it. I'm saying cooperation can exist without cartels. Yeah: and what does this have to do with he notion of class? Really, you're mising the point. Class does not necessarily exist only in organized structures of castes and cartels. No. Capialist "solidarity" derives from self-interest: actions taken in one's own interest can benefit other members of the same class, even if those members are in competition. Blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah.

Whereas the right wing gets off on sodomizing teenage boys (" a harmless prank" in Rush's words). Class. Yeah...in Bizzaro world. And what has fair and balanced reporting have to do with Rush? Oh wait, I forgot: Bizzaro world.

North Korea caves in....not. Obviously, Pyongyang recognizes the derrent value of a nuclear weapon. Either that, or they realize they can probably cut a better deal.

MONTY: you don't seem to have responded to BLACKDOG's question regarding when PIPA blew up in people's faces. Although you DID find time to make a smartass remark implying that Canada was not important enough for Ann Coulter to actually get educated about before using false comments about some fictional Canadian military history to try prop up her position. Sidestepping perhaps???? BTW, 'DOG, thanks for the link to PIPA. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here's the thing: Monty believes the misperceptions identified in the PIPA study are actually facts (in particularly, Iraq's links to 9-11 and Al Qaeda which were "proven" by a U.S. lower court judge and a Iraqi mural ). So in Montyworld, the study which shows how pig-ignorant Fox viewers are in relation to those who watch the SCLM is, in esscence, a validation. Keep in mind this is also a devoted follower of an administration that proudly boasts of its ability to "create our own reality".

Fair enough. Perhaps I'm underestimating the stupidity of the average Canadian. I would disagree with the point that there's strong political pressure to screw the prairies. I don't know how much of what we see is the product of real political tides or just, as I said before, lazy op-ed writers smelling an easy angle. I would hope (there I go again...) that there's enough people out there with the foresight to see that prosperous and happy prairie provinces are far more beneficial taht pissed off ones. For the sake of my own sanity, I hope it so, because I cannot abide the thought of dealing with yet more self-righteous rage from this priovince's blowhard sector.

Speaking of the "bridge to nowhere", Senator John McCain raise the idea of "charitable pork" last week: that is, giving up pet projects to help Hurricane Katrina victims. Vocally oppossed to this idea is Don Young, the Alaska Republican chair of the transportation committee and midwife of the six-year $295 billion transportation bill containing $721 million in projects for Alaska, including $223 million for a bridge larger than the Brooklyn Bridge and almost as long as the Golden Gate, to connect a town with 8,900 people to a town with 50 people and $200 million for another bridge, which will connect Anchorage to a town with one tenant and a handful of homes. Young's compassionate conservative response? "They can kiss my ear!"

Raiding Alberta's coffers won't address energy costs. Alberta benefits from high prices, but doesn't set them, the global market does (it was the global oil crash of the '70s, not the NEP, which made the last boom go bust). I'm not disagreeing with you that this speculation is media driven: it's a cheap and easy headline, a way to stir the pt and generate some juicy quotes. I would hope that even the federal Liberals aren't short sighted enough to try and rob the parairie Peter to pay Ontrio Paul. Unless hey've decided to abandon everything from Manitoba East, but I can't see much in the way of long term gains from that strategy. In places that already vote Liberal. You misread. Alberta is the economic engine that drives this whole country. Even Martin wouldn't be stupid enough to sacrifice the country's economy for some marginal electoral gains.

You're presenting a false dilemna: either they all stick together or they all fight among themselves. However, cooperation does not require the kind of formal organization of which you speak, nor does cooperation (even in a loose sense) preempt competition. Individual dealings between class equals can be quite savage, I'll grant. But even these intraclass rivaliries can be put aside in the face of a common threat (excuse the pun). It's not either/or. Right. Tell that one in Kennebunkport.

Iraqi forces may need years of preparation Undeclared civil war signals worse to come

It's nice to know that, in an uncertain world, we can always count on Ralph Klein to drag out PET's corpse to scare the children. Noone has sugested a raid on Alberta's piggy bank. Noone. Such a move would be political suicide and, as much as it pleases Albertans to think that the Liberals are evil kitten eaters who would put everyone with a 780 or 403 area code in slave labour camps if they could get away with it, the feds aren't stupid. If there's one thing amoral power mongers like Martin know, it's don't shit where you eat. And right now, Alberta is setting the table. But nevermind that. Ralph needs a boogeyman, something to drag out to show the local yokels that he's a tough-talkin', take-no-shit kinda guy who's always looking out for the regular Joe. And what better bogeyman than the hoary ghost of the NEP, something Alberta children are warned about from the time we're in short pants ("If you don't eat your vegetables Trudeau will tax them away!"), but few can tell you what it was. It's a tried and true routine and one that never fails to set the rubes atwitter and, most handily, draws the spotlight away from the provincial Tories' own utter lack of vision or leadership.

This fallacy is known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc," that is, "afterward, therefore because of." Interesting interview So it appears both examples (Libya and North Korea) utterly repuidate your statements that "the road to peace is through strength and resolve" and "the only thing dictators understand is force or the threat of it". The carrot worked better than the stick.

Here's the article. I found one tidbit that, to me, sums up the state of the American way:

They voted? Bully for them. Doesn't mean much. Until Afghanistan has a functioning, legal (nearly half of Afghanistan's gross domestic product now derives from the poppy/heroin trade) economy and basic institutions, there's nothing really for a parliament to do. That said, it would be nice to see Afghanistan succeed on its own terms. I just happen to doubt the possibility of success of a modern, western construct (democracy) on a country mired in the stone age.