Black Dog

if I were to run ads in your local newspaper saying you were a pedophile, would you stand idly by while it happens? Or would you demand that obvious lies be removed from the public sphere? It's not about censorship, it's about honesty. As I pointe dout SBVT is a G.O.P-funded mouthpiece spreading delberate lies. Please point out any lies of this magnitude spread by the Kerry campaign. As for bitching about moveon et al, Bush is an incumbant and as such should be taken to task on his record, which is exactly what these folks are doing. For instance, questions about Bush's ANG service (which date back to the last election) stand in direct contrast to his macho "war president" posturing. Citation, please?

Uh huh. A GO.P with a record for negative campaigning a mile long (Rove's frigging licence plate reads "GONEG" fer chrissakes) and the best you can manage is "Wahhh! They started it." Playground logic. All ABout Karl (BTW when it coems to Hitler comparisons, teh G.O.P set teh standard)

More on SBVFT: Swift Boat Controversy So ity seems the Bush crowd, no strangers to using dirty tricks themselves, are the ones who can't take a taste of their own medicine and, rather than keeping the high moral ground, have launched this latest smear campaign. But then, one can't honestly expect Bush to campaign on his record, lamentable as it is.

Evidence? They were. The truth hurts, don't it? As for McCain, would this be the same McCain who, in in a US News and World Report article [May 14, 1973], said that he languished in a cell for several days, his injuries untreated. Confronted with a North Vietnamese officer who was "a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends we had to deal with," as McCain put it, he decided to cooperate. According to his own account, McCain said: "OK, I will give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." the same McCain who told 60 Minutes in a 1997 interview: "I am a war criminal; I bombed innocent women and children" As for the Swift Boat "veterans" and the authours of Unfit Command: Really, who are the flippers here?

Missile Defense "unproven": GAO How does that compare to the counterterrorism funds? In 2001 (after 9-11), a Senate committeeapproved the president's request for $8.3 billion for missile defense for the fiollowing fiscal year -- a $3 billion increase over te previous fiscal year's funding. Similarly, the House on approved $7.9 billion for missile defense as part of the $343 billion defense authorization bill. In contrast (and keep in mind, this wasbefore the smoke had even cleared from the Twin towers), the Senate did give the President the authority to spend $1.3 billion of the money set aside for missile defense to combat terrorism and the House designated $400 million for anti-terrorism efforts. In all, Congress has approved about $6 billion for improved counter-terrorism efforts - a total amount that is substantially less than either chamber approved for missile defense. Prior to 9-11, the DoD vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism. So it seems the contention that money spent on missile defense is not coming at the expense of other defence priorities.

Nonsense. I highly doubt the pro-Israel lobby is just flushing tens of millions of dollars away in hopes that, somehow, American and Israeli interests run in concord. Money shapes policy. The pro-Israel lobby has a great deal of influence of U.S. foreign policy. As for your unspoken but apparent allegation that the well-documented ties between the Bush family and the daudis have no bearing on U.S. policy, consider the relatively soft approach the U.S. has taken with the Saudi's known terrorism links, versus the contoartions they went through to create the illusion of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Consider that Saudi Arabia, as bad a human rights violator as any nation in the region, gets a free pass in that respect. Consider, too, the Saudi connection to 9-11, which has been downplayed and covered up by the administration. There ar ereasons for this: the U.S. needs Saudi oil and Bush Sr, Jr. and tehir friends need Saudi dollars.

Feh. Look at Humvees, disposable everythings, tract housing, tyoxic waste dumping, clearcutting, open-pit mining.... The "free markets" contribution to the environment has been, on balance, a negative one. Furthermore, when the "free market" does act to clean up its act, its generally as a result of government regulation and intervention.

And...so what? You were the one who brought the Saudis into a thread about Israel. What point were you trying to make?

Well, you know what they say about opinions.... If they were true, offering up some compelling economic data (that's hard evidence) should be easy as pie. Yet you can't do that. Which is fine inasmuch as its your opinion. But if your opinion doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it damages your credibility and that of your opinion. So you hide behind your argument being "self-evident". I mean, my "opinion" could be that the sun revolves around the earth. But that opinion wouldn't stand up very olng in the face of the compelling hard evidence available. Canada's GDP (% real change pa) 2000: 5.26 2001: 1.92 2002: 3.28 2003: 1.71 US GDP (% real change pa) 2000:3.66 2001:0.51 2002: 2.19 2003: 3.12 You're numbers are correct, but teh U.S. has gon ethrough a great deal of economic upheaval. More relevant to the argument at hand, though, is labour costs: Canada Labour costs per hour (USD) 2000: 16.04 2001: 15.80 2002: 16.02 2003: 18.47 USA Labour costs per hour (USD) 2000: 19.76 2001: 20.60 2002: 21.33 2003: 21.83

Saudi secrets safe with Bush Saudis promise pre-election oil price cut I get where you're going: you're assuimg-simplisticly-that one or the other must be false, when there's no reason to assume the two diverging interests cannot coexists in a the byzantine political climate of Washington. It seems there's plenty of room at the trough.

I believe the Bush administration has close economic and political ties with the House of Saud that lead to the Saudis having an undue amount of influence over certain policy decisions. At the same time, this view does not contradict any influence exerted by the powerful pro-israel lobby.

Ya know Hjalamar, you're really good at posting random, subjective anecdotes that may or may not have any bearing on the subject of unions' influence. Yet you've beenc ompletely unable to give any hard data to support your claims, despite re[peated requests to do so. If your claims were so self-evidently true, then producing a chart, or some economic data tying , say, union-wages with an increase in the CPI, you'd be on to something. But I suspect I was right before: your argument is ao much ideologicaly-based hot air. The numbers make a liar out of you. Canada's GDP has been increasing over the past 5 years and the ecomony is ecxpected to continue to grow at about 3 per cent per year over the next two years. Contrast Canada's relativelty robust economy with that of the U.S., land of free-market opportunity, and your argument falls flat on its face.

Well, anyone with half a brain can separate the very personal connections between the familiasBush and the House of Saud with the vigourous lobbying done by the likes of the AIPAC on Capitol Hill and in the Senate. Your position is a false dichotomy.

Is that a license to carry on potentially damaging practices, then? Common sense would indicate its not a brilliant idea to pump toxins into the air, ground and water, yet we continue to do so, despite ample evidence of the negative impact humanity has had on the global ecosystem, including mass extinctions of plant and animal life.

Uh, I think where Wal Mart is concerned it's less a matter of "satisfying employees" as it is "squashing union organization efforts". McDonald's uses the same approach and, consequentially, has become synonymous with dead-end, crap jobs. Hjalmar: I'm still waiting to see some data to back up your claims.

Why? You're just assuming a conclusion based on a very specious line of thinking. I'll give you that your scenarios are possible. But I don't think they're very probable, based on legal precedent. But, once again, that's not what the argument is about. if someone wants to marry their parakeet, that's fine, but the law won't acknowledge the relationship as a marriage, nor would Crackers be entitled to any spousal benefits. But it has nothing to do with legal gay marriage. The practice of nonconsenusal marriage is abhorrant and not what we in the west would consider a ideal. Gay marriage is primarily an issue in the west. There are societies that still prosecute and kill homosexuals and others where wopmen are considered property. Hopefully, we'll get to the point where these outdated practices are a thing of the past. But those practices are tangential to the argument. Why wouldn't it? What's to say that gay marriage won't be the end of the line?

Outsourcing -- doesn't that explain it all? Why are corporations fleeing to lower wage jurisdictions? Very self evident -- they have become uncompetitive from a price standpoint because of high union wages and benefits. No. It doesn't. Outsourcing is more complex than that. Wages are a factor, but you haven't shown that's the fault of unions. Given a choice between a North American job and an overseas job where you only have to pay workers a pitance, you'll go with the pittance. AT that point it doesn't matte rif workers are making $10/hr or $25: paying someone 75 cents a day trumps 'em both. Furthermore, many juridstictions offer companies tax breaks and other incentives to relocate operations. And, as willy's earlier link implied, high wages are not a deterrent for some industries when it comes to outsourcing. Basically you're scapegoating unions in what's really a complex issue.

What I found interesting about the article, and indeed, has always fascinated me about Albertans complaining of stereotyping, is how quickly they themselves resort to sterotypesmake their point. Chua's chracterization of the "rail-thin, latte-drinking women in their early 40s (who) looked like they had never left the confines of downtown Toronto" is a good example. The sterotype of the wine-drinking, Armani-clad limousene liberal from the GTA is alive and well here in Alberta. So easterners have sterotypes about Albertans. Albertans have sterotypes about easterners. Everyone has sterotypes, they're an inevitable byproduct of having a small, geographically widespread population.

Public spending on social programs in Alberta had been declining for several years and was even below the Canadian average when the Klein government came to power in 1992. The idea that public spending was out of control during the Getty years is a perfect example of a lie repeated so much that it becomes the truth. Klein's policies have been exported to Ontario and BC with, at best, limited success and caused a great deal of misery. So as much as you'd just like to think the rest of the country just hates you because you're beautiful, stop and think about wy people, having seen the failure of the common sense revolution, would be a trifle hestitant to lionize Mr. Klein. As a born'n'bred Albertan, my opinion that Albertans are morons is actually quite well-informed, having been culled from a lifetime of experience among the citizens of this province. Yeah, but I'd sweep eastern Canada.

But you haven't offered any real evidence to show union-wages are to blame for risiing consumer prices, decreased productivity or any other of the ills you claim they cause. I'm beginning to think your union-bashing is strictly idealogically-based. Even if this were true, so what? The most efficient system would be forced sweatshop labour. No union, no wages to pay, more resopurces for production. Surely that would be more produictive, no? The point is, unions provide the necessary balance to ensure workers are looked after. A corporations sole purpose is to maximize gain for a select few. From a social standpoint, kow-towing to the needs of these select few would be a disaster. Down? CostCo has been performing far better than Wal Mart over the past few years. If unions were as damaging as you say, one would expect Costco to perpetually lag behind its union-busting rival. Obviously the union worker, who is making $8-10/hr more than his non-union counterpart for the same work, is doing better. I'm still struggling to see how you can point to higher union wages as a bad thing for workers? Really, if the problem was a self-evident as you claim it couldn't be that hard to offer some proof to go with your boilerplate. More likely, he's a frustrated would-be capitalist.

Obviously, the Tories will take the next election. They've been in power for 35 years. Albertans aren't like BC, they seem to have a child-like faith that their government will do what's right. It has nothing to do with policy. Also, the simple economics of party politics means there's no viable opposition in Alberta. And it's a moot point. Sorry, but that's a pet peeve. Proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Albertans are, by and large, morons.

Prove it. How do unions decrease productivity? On the other hand, economies where workers get paid more tend to be more productive, simly because workers have more to spend, thus creating a ready supply of capital. Furthermore, as the WalMart/CostCo case study seems to indicate, a happy union workforce is a stable workforce. Turnover is a huge drain on productivity. If your assertion wa strue, then non-union WalMart should be cleaning CostCos clock. But instead, it's falling way behind. (Of course there are always other factors to consider, but we're painiting in fairly broad strokes here.)

I expected something like that. The U.S. is usually well behind other western nations on progressive social issues (ie. the War on Drugs, capital punishment, even sex ed) and will continue to lag as long as the reactionary religious right holds the political clout it does.

Alberta still has the fastest growing economy in terms of GDP growth. Also, note that the Liberals probably won't be in power in four years. Gordo's gang is plummeting fast due to the unpopularity of service and tax cuts, which haven't delivered as promised.

The real bottom line is that Klein was only able to do what he did (with respect to the debt) because high oil prices allowed him to funnel surplus money into debt-relief. You'll notice that the Klein approach has been a failure in other provinces (BC, Ont.) becuase they don't have the revenue.