Black Dog

Possibly. But I also don't think there's enough real anger and alienation in the province. Most Albertans are doing quite well personally. Why would they roll the dice and risk their curent prosperity? The PCs embody the malaise that good times brings. The ALberta Alliance, too, is focused more on the PCs than on Ottawa: given the nature of party politics in this province, an Alliance win would just mean more of the same old same old. The only thing I could see spurring Albertans into such a dramatic action would be a dramatic economic upheaval (such as the collapse of the natural reesorce sector or a federal money grab). But then such an upheaval would leave Alberta ill-suited to life on its own. Here's really what it boils down to: for the people that matter (political and business leaders) the status quo is working great. Radical change is a great unknown and, unless it guaranteed a return for them in excess of what the current system offers, they won't do it. What are you basing this on? All the evidence indicates seccession is a non issue in Alberta. Rathe rthan being downplayed, I'd say separation is being overplayed.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to fight for what they think is right. Tally ho and all that. My beef is with people who want nothing more than to turn this country into a shallow copy of teh U.S., who prais ethe latter at every opportunity while denigrating the former. I'm no nationalist, but I look at it from a practical point of view: the world already has one U.S.A. Rather than try and take a country where the majority of people have an abiding attachement to Canada's progressive institutions and swing it drastically to the right, why not just go someplace where you'd be more at home? You wouldn't know fascism if it kicked you in the face with its jackboot.

Let me explain it to you:the margin of error on the poll is +/- 2.9 percentage points. That means the 52 per cent figure could be as high as 55 or as low as 49 per cent. The 44 per cent figure, thenm, could be as low as 41 or as high as 47. Statisticaly speaking, that's a very slim margin. It certainly is in line with othe rpolls on the matter which have shown an almost even split on the SSM issue. Wrong. Most polls on abortion show that most Canadians are pro-choice. In a Leger poll taken September 2001, 46.6% of respondents say they are personally "for" abortion, while 37.6% say they are personally "against" abortion. In the same poll, 54.5% of respondents agreed with the idea that "only women should have the right to decide to have an abortion," while 38.5% disagreed. A Gallup poll in December 2001 asked respondents: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances and in what circumstances?" The results showed that 32 percent of Canadians believed abortion should be legal in all circumstances (down from 37% in 2000), 52 percent believed abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances and 14 percent thought abortions should be illegal in all circumstances, (up 9 percent from 2000). In a Leger poll taken January 2002, 47% of respondents said abortion was "not immoral," while 41.8% said it was. In a poll conducted by the National Post in November 2002, 78 per cent of respondents answered "yes" to the question: "Should women have complete freedom on their decision to have an abortion?". A poll in October 2003 conducted by Leger asked about prenatal legal protection, and several abortion-related topics. 63% said they favoured legal protection for human life before birth and 69% favour informed consent legislation on abortion. In a Gallup Canada poll taken September 2004, 54% of respondents said they personally thought abortion was "morally acceptable." In a Gallup Canada poll taken April 2005, 52% of respondents say they would like to see Canadian abortion laws "remain the same," 20% say they would like the laws to be "less strict," while 24% say they would like the laws to be "more strict." Among provinces, British Columbia and Quebec have the highest percentage who are pro-choice, and the Prairies have the highest percentage who are pro-life. (Thank you wikipedia!) Public opinion polls consistently place health care, education and intergovernmental cooperation at the top of the list of Canadians' priorities, far ahead of taxation. And while people may grumble about it, most would rather see their tax dollars put to good use (democratic reform also tops tax cuts as a prority).

While consumption taxes are regressive, I have little sympathy for people who complain about high gas taxes, simply because there are alternatives available. As for alternative fuels, I think any such alternative would merely be a stopgap.

What a load of crap. There was a huge outcry from the left over the Kazemi affair. The question, though, is if it is a crime here in Canada. That's how extradation works, see. Now, since Emery was going about his business for some time with the full knowledge of the Canadian authorities, I think there's a case to be made that, sinc ethe authorities allowed him to operate, the alleged offense doe not constitute a crime worthy of extradition.

Clearly there's not. Let's look at the human body, with its extraneous parts (hello? nipples on men? the appendix?) it's shoddy construction (such as a hip and spine structure that resembles those of quadrapedial primates, such as chimps, and remains unsuitable for bipedal motion). The special adaptations we have can be easily explained through evolution and natural selection. No designer necessary. First: saying something is valid because it is supported by a numbe rof people is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Second: my statement that religon is mumbo jumbo is my personal opinion, to which I am entitled. Finally, science is not some divine gift, but the product of thousands of years of human development. Inded, the evolution of science parrallels our own advancement as a species. The topic is prayer in schools, and the large rissue is the separation of church and state. I think the issue of whethe ror not there is a creator is extremely relevant if we're talking about what should be happening in classrooms.

Sounds like he took a page out of Nixon's "madman" approach to foreign policy. I think it's posturing, a bit of bluster to keep the populace riled up against the "Zionist enemy" and distracted from their own lot in life.

Quebec is very serious and has come close twice (most notably in 1995). So I'd put thm at about a 8. In Alberta, though separation has never gained much traction. The only success the western separation movement has had was winning a single seat in the provincial legislature in the 1980's at the height of the NEP backlash. So I'll be generous and give Alberta a 2.

No kiddin'? I can't wait for your next pearl of wisdom: "there are two sides to every story" perhaps? Or how about "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"? Sorry, but really: I don't think this discussion is as black and white as you suggest.

Um...you don't want an equal society. You want a society where your particular segemnt of the population gets to take full advantage of the inequalitie sthat favour you, be it the oil that, through a total accident of geology, ended up under "our" dirt, or the colour of your skin.

Curse the CBC for not reporting on this non-story!! *shakes fist*

That's not a particularily conservative attitude. Like Sparhawk said: the market is just doing its thing.

Can you lovebirds take your spat to PMs instead of bunging up the discussion? Thx.

That's not a theory. Theories are based on evidence. There is no evidence of such a designer. Frankly that's retarded. Just because science is unable to fill in every gap in human knowledge, that's no reason to discard it or put it on the same level as spiritual mumbo jumbo. Science has done more to advance civilization, knowledge and the well being of mankind than religion ever has. Which doesn't really solve the issue of who made the watchmaker, does it?

I don't know about contempt, but the economic realities (and the reality that Israel's military is almost wholly dependent on US equipment) wold say that Israel would not step out of line. They've done so in teh past, of course, but not in a situation that would damage U.S. interests and threaten U.S. lives to the degree a a strike on Iran would. Um..I think an Israeli attack, using American jets dropping American bombs after flying over American-controlled airspace would be easily and quickly laid at the U.S.'s doorstep. Imagine the hornet's nest that attacking a Shiite nation like Iran would stir up in the Shiite dominated Iraq (where the majority has been mostly amenable to American intervention). As for the backlash, I expect most Arab nations kno wbetter than to try Israel one on one. Instead, we'd see more support for militant groups like Hizbullah from Iran and Syria. You'd probably see a sudden upswing in the number of "insurgents" crossing the Syrian and Iranian borders to fight the U.S. in Iraq, and these insurgents would be better trained and equipped than ever before. In short an attack on Iran, either by the U.S. or israel, would hamstring the U.S's efforts in the Middle East.

Piffle. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1970 committed the idea of the right for self-determination to the body of international protocol. In essence, all people reserve the right to seek self-determination to address a lack of proper representation or oppression from any given government. So "persistent and egregious human rights violations" are not the sole criteria. I think there's an argument to be made that Alberta is not well represented by the current political arraingment. I won't be the one to make it, mind you. Okay: you're pulling ths stuff out of your ass now. Terrorist violence? By who? Against whom? Frankl, the only way I see "terrorist violence" becoming an issue is if the federal state decides to suppress teh expression of self-determination by force, in which case resistance would be justifiable and responsibility for the violence would be with the aggressor. But it's not a huge leap. That opinion can be supported by, say, referencing Osama bin Laden's pronouncments about American policies. Your logical leap (again, that independence movements are equivilant to terrorists) is based on unprovable assumptions, starine dlogic and a complete disregard for social realities.

I'll concede that its a complex issue, but I refuse to reject wholesale the notion that expression of self-determination can be so narrowly defined. But its a contradiction. On the one hand you say that a UDI is unacceptable in "civilized" society, on the other you accept violence as a recourse to remedy the situation. Not what I would call a "civilized" reaction. I recognize it as a logically inconsistent position, which is why I don't endorse it. However, I think the conclusion that "promoting seperation is the same as promoting violence" is a huge leap in logic. They are two different issues, though both are logically unsound.

It's not without inconvenience. But overall, I get along just fine without a car (and save a lot of money in the process). The government doesn't control gas prices. The oil companies and cartels do. High gas prices are an example of the basic principles of the market in action: demand is rising, supply is shrinking so price is increasing. But liek any other product, you can simply choose to not buy the product. That is a difficult thing, given that our society has been designed around the caer, but I think its a good time as any for us all to wean ourselves off our addiction to petrol.

Well, hypotheticals aren't really useful, but I would expect that Canada would seek out other means of negotiating a compromise. And I can't see how a UDI, if undertaken with the consent of the population in question, can be anti-democratic. Seems to me such a thing would be perfectly in line with the principles of democracy. Negotiation within the current consititutional framework is the only legimate avenue for change because the constitution says it is. That's a circular argument. National borders are not immutable. I don't accept the serperatist argument for maintaing the current borders of Quebec, so I don't really accept your similar interpretation either.

Sorry, but that's bogus. Your theory that a UDI would be an act of war is patently silly. You're basically saying that Canadians are imprisoned within the confines of the current system and any attempt to reform or reject the system should be met with violence. This is completely contrary to the basic principle of self-determination upon which democracy rests. I don't agree with seperatism as the solution to Alberta's woes, but reject any equivocation between its proponents and terrorists. (By the way, even if separation did lead to violence, there's no way someone fighting for their independance against

I'm pretty tired of hearing science get referred to as a religion. Unlike religions, science is flexible: its principles and theories can change as new evidence comes to light. Science starts with questions and seeks to find answers through observation, identification, description, and experimental investigation. Religion starts with the answer and works backwards from there. The Big Bang and evolution are sperate questions. It's probably impossible to prove how the universe began (though scientific explanations can be advanced as evidence is accumulated). But it's easy to prove how life progressed from there. This illustrates another key difference between science and religion. One says "God created the Universe." The other "we theorize that the Universe began with the Big Bang." One is an absolute statement, one a theory based on available evidence and observation but by no means absolute. That's why the idea that the two should be treated equally is ridiculous.

Right: just what the U.S. would want: another 30 million Democrats. No, but it would help us hardworking, taxpaying citizens get rid of some of the obnoxious whiners who complain endlessly about this country (even as they reap the benefits of living here) and extoll the virtues of another country, but lack the courage of their convictions to actuially move there.

Many believe it was the sole purpose for the sale. Check out ... http://www.globalsecurity.org/ Also, in the book "By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky, Israel evidently sold Iran it's (faulty) air-defense systems for their nuclear facilities. (though it was some time ago, they may have been upgraded) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I'm just saying, from a strategic standpoint, sending Israel to take out Iran's nuclear facilities would open a can of worms that would not benefit the U.S. in the region.

Sure its a lot, but I figure it's a fair price to pay for the privilege of car ownership. As for ttransit, my transit rates haven't increased in (I think) two years. I don't know if high gas prices will be a detriment to transit or a benefit (perhaps high gas prices will encourage more people to take th ebus, thu smaking it cheaper). I'm not sure having oil has any bearing on gas prices, which are tied to the global price of crude. For example, the vast majority of Alberta's oil and gas is exported for consumption elsewhere, so there's little benefit to Albertans at the pumps.

First: I have never seen any figures showing who pays what into equalization: anybody have some handy? Second: details aside, why are people convinced that separation would change any of these things? Alberta's political system suffers with many of the same flaws as the federal system (such as a lak of public input and a serious democratic deficit): The elite in Alberta have benefitted greatly from this set up and I highly doubt they'd be willing to change it.