Black Dog

They voted based on dislike of Aznar and the Popular party, which joine dthe Iraq war against the wishes of the vast majority of Spaniards and then bugled the handling of the Madrid bombings by prematurely and tenaciously attributing the bombings to radical Basque separatist group. When evidence continued to mount that Al Qaeda, not ETA, was probably responsible for the atrocities, a good many Spanish voters concluded that the government was manipulating the tragedy for its own political advantage. You could, but then there's the issue of credibility. One can be one-sided and still be credible. one can be one sided and know what one is talking about. None the intellectual flyweights you named are experts on anything but ponificating. Hell, they're not even journalists.

Oh yes, I forgot: every bad thing that happens can be traced to Osama bin Laden. Did it ever ocur to you hat the above events might not be connected? Indeed, we still don't know if OBL was involved in the London incidents today. In any case, there's no denying that the primary beneficiary of the war on terror's escalations have been Islamists. Iraq, thanks to the U.S. invasion, is a hotbed of terrorist training and activity (much like Afghanistan wa sin the 1980s). Anti-western sentiment is running high and we're certainly not any safer now than we were pre-9-11 (as today's events show). Given the lack of progress so far and considering the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, would another escalation in response to these events make sense? Let's see the perpatrators brought to justice. But that's a job for the spooks, the cops and the diplomats, not the infantry. I trust he generally knows what he's talking about. Indeed, most of my statements regarding intelligence (specifically relating to Iraq) made it plain that the intelligence was manipulated by other interests and that the CIA's actual assessments were more cautious and equivocal than we were told. As for one-sided: who said he had to be balanced?

No we don't need much of a military because the threats against us are remote at best, the same reason we don't need to be part of a crackpot missile defence scheme that doesn't work and is designed to protect against threats that don't really exist.

I wonder: do they extend the same courtesy to the folks who eat at Red Lobster?

Precisely what bin Laden wants. If anyone bothered to look at the stated goals of Al Qaeda (if indeed, they are responsible for these attacks today), the expulsion o western forces and the removal of western influence on Islamic countires is only a step on the ultimate goal of re-establishing the Caliphate. In order to do that, bin Laden needs to get the Islamic world on his side. And what beter way to radicalize the millions of moderate Muslims than by goading the west into sescalating the conflict? Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer makes the same point in the opening paragraph of his bestselling book, Imperial Hubris: The United States and the United Kingdom have two of th emost powerful militarie sin the world, yet were unable to prevent terrorist attacks on thei rown soil. So there's no correlation between military strength and the ability to prevent and respond to terror threats. Canada would be wise to scrap its outdated, Third Genatration-style military and rebuild it with a focus on domestic security.

London's emergency response crews seem to be incredibly well-coordinated and proffessional. I expect after years of IRA activity and the post 9-11, post-Madrid threats, they've ben preparing for just such and event.

i think it came from all that business about "love thy neighbour as thyself" and "judge not lest ye be judged" etc.

Sure there is. Stop. Propping. Up. Dictators. Bullshit. Was Ken Saro Wiwa a "thug" for standing up to the brutal dictatorship aided and abetted by the defenceless multinationals you're defending? Right, so the only people who have a right to talk about the gross imbalance of wealth and the wests actions with respect to the developing world are suppossed to be hermits and neo-Luddites? Again: bullshit. This is utterly specious reasoning and can easily be turned around. F'r instance, IMR, I know you personally supported the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror. So why aren't you carrying an M-16 in Baghdad right now? The reality is we live in the society that others have built. Yes, we benefit from grave injustices committted upon others which is why its paramount we work to reduce or eliminate such injustices committed on our behalf and not, as you would have us, shut up and silently reap the rewards.

Re-read my post again: do I at any point absolve Africa's leadership? Nope. Africa is being run into the ground by greedy tyrants. Nobody disputes that. However, to read your posts and those of others, these thugs sprang from the earth fully formed to wreak havoc on the populace and plunder the land. Neither have I endorsed aid or debt relief as a means to end the systemic problems Africa and the rest of the developing world faces. Certainly the issue is complex and I'm the last person who would resort to simple explanations. But it would be nice to recognize the role we in the west play in maintaining the status quo, be it through unfair trade techniques (such as import tarriffs and commodity dumping), the damage wrought by IMF mandated structural adjustments in the 1980's and '90s, arms sales totalling billions each year (the UK is the leading arms dealer for many of Africa's genocide states), and other factors. Again, why so simplistic? They played a role (Shell, for example, contracted private mercanaries to deal with dissidents and indiginous populations in areas of oil exploration). I also reject your simplistic, quaint notions of the role of modern corporations (especially mega ones like Shell and other petro giants). Many of these corporations are national economies unto themselvve and weild considerable political and economic influence as a result. It's in their interests to maintain the relationships they've cultivated with strongmen and thugs. The governments and institutions that have taken a long time to establish control and exploitation of Africa will not quickly abandon their spoils.

Nigeria's a prime example of how western interests facilitate the continued oppression of African people and the corruption of their leadership. Nigeria collects millions of dollars a year in oil riches, yet seventy percent of Nigeria's population lives on less than $1 dollar a day, and the poorest fifth of the population received only four percent of the nation's wealth. However western oil companies like Shell and Chevron turn a blind eye and, in some cases, actively take part in the suppression of dissent. No discussion of Africa's endemic corruption can take place without mentioning western complicity, nor can any talk of refrom take place without aknowledging the barriers "our" interests present to real positive change.

Municipalities are stuck with a single primary source of revenue (property taxes) that does not keep up with the demands of rapid population and economic growth (not to mention that the province also digs its fingers into that particular pie). Add on downloading of services from the province and cuts to provincial transfers and its amazing that municipalities have been able to maintain basic services and balanced budgets at all.

It is indeed a national issue. However, Alberta is unique in that it has been one of the few provinces that could actually afford to keep up their infrastructure. Instead, the province focused on debt repayment as its main priority, which is kinda like worrying about your mortgage payments when your roof is caving in.

Be that as it may, there's no denying that costs are also increasing in education, while post secondary education is getting out of reach for many. I guess Alberta's municipal associations, think tanks like the CWF and teh provincial government themselves are full of crap when they talk about the infrastructure debt, hey? You don't seem particularily inclined to cop to any of them, though.

Where have you been? Alberta's municipal infrastructure debt, according to the Canada West foundation, currently stands at around $8 billion. Both Edmonton and Calgary (not to mention smaller communities with smaller economic bases) are having difficulty maintaining their roads, sidewalks, seweres etc. Edmonton did a review of its infrstructur in 2002 and found that 58 per cent of its assests could be classified in "good" condition, 29 per cent was "fair" and 13 per cent was "poor". This is because of the strain of growth and limited revenues available to municipalities. Schols and health facilities are doing better, but are still suffering and, in many cases, eroding. So I'd be interested to see what you're basing your belief that Alberta's roads, hospitals, and education system are the best in the country.

I do so love to see so many Alberta myths rolled out at once. Who says we Albertans don't like recycling? Let's start with taxes. On paper, Alberta does indeed have lower taxes than the rest of the country. However, we also have dozens of other taxes, such as health premiums, commodity taxes, user fees that rake in billions, but somehow slip under the radar. Some taxes just don't figure into the calculations. Then we have the flat tax, an initiative that, like so many other products of the Klein revolution, was foisted upon us with little debate or consultation and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to implement. Then we have the myth of self-sufficiency. Alberta is a province built on government largesse. The oil and agricultural industries in particular are two examples of where the government has helped subsidize private business with public dollars through loans and sweetheart royalty deals. Certainly, the province sees some returns, but often (like the BSE bailout) these handouts amount to little more than subsidizing failures. I've always found the BSE crisis as evidence of the two-faced nature of Alberta's self-image: the same folks who, in good times, just want the government off their backs are the first with their hands out when things go pear-shaped. Fiscal prudence? Sure, if chopping mercilessly to defuse what was a mostly a non-crisis over debt is prudence. If paying off the debt while allowing services and infrastructure to crumble is prudence. And sure, the government has since re-invested billions in health and education. But what’s clearly lacking is any sort of vision. Klein taketh away and Klein giveth haphazardly, promising, but never quite delivering earth shattering reforms in areas like healthcare, applying band-aid solutions to skyrocketing tuition rates and patchwork pot hole coverings to municipal infrastructure debts. I could go on, I suppose, but really, I doubt I’ll change any of the cheerleader’s outlooks. Alberta isn’t a horrible place to live. We do have it pretty good here. However, the constant rah-rah refrain is tiresome and ignores so many areas we could be doing better in. There’s nothing wrong with a little self-criticism.

Great. But not really relevant to the question of wages, which was my initial point (y'know, the one you called "specious"). Super! But this isn't a discussion of free trade, but of labour.

Really? How so? What's so different now than then? I disagree. People are perfectly willing to tolerate starvation, widespread lack of educational and medical services and injustice throughtout the world, regardless of who's running the show. Now, as then, western democracies are primarily inward-looking. Sure, we'll drop a few pennies in the jar at Safeway, or write Bob Geldof's millionaires a cheque, but it's mostly understood (implicitly) that "their" suffering is a unfortunate, but necessary, collarary to "our" way of life.

Just out of curiosity what has happened to wages since free trade? Oh yeah: they've stagnated. A recent (2005) TD Economics publication reported that real after-tax income per Canadian worker had risen only 3.6 per cent over the last fifteen years, while per capita GDP experienced a 25.5 per cent growth over the same period. Similarly, a recent Statistics Canada research paper found that real “median wages of Canadian workers have changed little over the last two decades… …despite the growing experience and educational attainment of the work force."

Not ignore. But in the context of your re-colonization idea, the role of the industrial nations in Africa's plight is not to be ignored. So that admission kinda torpedoes your re-colonization notion. If anyone is dispalying some rather breathtaking naivete, its you for acknowledging the less than simon pure tendancies of the west on the one hand, while on the otehr expecting them to suspend these practices on the othe rin the name of helping Africa up. In other words there's no reason to believe future colonization would be any more successful or well-iintende dthan the last round. Funny, I never once made a point about what should be done (though a good first step on our part would be to stop the practices that facilitate despotism and poverty and let Africa pull themselves up by the bootstraps), only countered your notion that recolonization (an openly paternalistic statement if there ever was one, despite your weak assertions to the contrary) would work. So you've just created another one of your patented Argus strawmen. You should sell those things at the farmer's market.

I was going to cast my lot for onlythetruth, but then I saw he/she wasn't on the list, which leaves me to belive this whole thing is just another Illuminati conspiracy. Damn you Illuminati! *shakes fist*

Uh...why not? Canada's lawmakers deal with Canada's law, which they are free to change. What the rest of the world does is irrelevant. I read somewhere (can't find the reference now) that only 3 per cent of Canadians think SSM is an election issue. In any case, even if it were, what's to be done about it? The only way a federal government of any stripe would be able to get around it is by using the notwithstanding clause.

Your whole post is an example of an ad populum fallacy. Just because other cultures (would that also include the ones where women are stoned to death if they get raped?) don't support gay marriage, that doesn't not make it the wrong thing to do. What's more, gay relationships are legally recognized in most industrial nations in some way. If they felt it was "unnatural" (as you claim) why would they recognize these relationships at all? Gay marriage around the globe Of course if we disqualify gays from marrying on the basis of not be able to produce children (well, males, anyway) we should also disqualify the infertile,the post-menopausal, the willingly childless etc etc.

And here's how we need to build Conservative governments as successful as Alberta's in other provinces. STEP 1: Use Alberta's surplus to construct some sort of time machine. STEP 2: Travel back to prehistoric times. STEP 3: Collect various lifeforms (plants, microscopic organisms etc.) STEP 4: Mix this organic matter with mud and bury it under thick sedimentary layers of material in areas of the earth that will become Canada, specifically, Ontario. Await Catagenesis. STEP 5: $$$

you forgot populist... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No I didn't. Populism is a good thing. It means sticking up for people's rights. The Klein government has a populist venerr, but is no more populist than the Martin Liberals.

Hey Army Guy: may I suggest you check out the following by Smedley Butler. Butler was a Marine Corps war hero, two-time Medal of Honor recipent and retired as a Major General. I think his beliefs about the nature of war (from one who'd seen plenty of it) ring as true today as they did in his time: War is a Racket