Black Dog

Foreign investment alone does not creat subordinate economies. The conditions by which third world economies are opened to foreign investment do. Look at the IMF's post-Kenysian "structural adjustments" in Latin America in the '80s as an example. Averages are grossly misleading, as globalization polices have a tendancy to further stratify class structures. There's no evidence globalization policies help the poor. Even those godless Marxists at the IMF say so: Effects of Financial Globalization on Developing Countries: Some Empirical Evidence The report shows there is no empirical evidence to suggest financial integration has a positive, significant effect on growth. The report doesn't address how these policies that damage vulnerable economies, raise poverty rates and damage the environment, but given the negligible gain to the poor and local economies, one wonders if its worth it. As for your red-baiting: feh. Open your eyes: there is a civil war. The CPA has muddled through with no coherent plan for how to build a democracy in Iraq. The current government has no credibility with the people (more than half of which want the U.S. et al out immediately, regardless of the consequenses) and, if it wer enot for the 500,000 U.S. troops backing it, would fall in no time. So the scenario you've outlained is already being played out. Th eonly differnce is the occupation is presenting a target for the Iraqi factions that might otherwise turn against each other. So, the West is preventing no bloodshed, causing much of it. Whatever, my point stands: there's no definitive proof Salman Pak was a terrorist camp. The source of those claims was two defectors from Iraqi intelligence, and tehy have not been substaniated. (Otherwise, don't you think such a sensational claim would be blasted all over the headlines and every news channel?) Well, Rumsfeld's comments are entirely relevant as they formed part of the main case for the war in the first place. What development sites? That's a new one. Again, nowhere did I contend Saddam had no interest in WMD. However, he simply lacked the means to do so. Your selective interpretation of the facts doesn't make you any more correct.

In response to the query posed by the thread title, I'd say: yes. Harper can be the next Reagan (albeit in minuature) through his promotion of failed "trickle down" economic policies, agressive resitance to social programs (Reagan even went so far as to try to cut federal funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable to save money.), an anti-labour stance, rollbacks of environmental protections and a foreign policy rooted in realpolitik and self-interest. However, one saving grace is that Harper won't have Reagan's ability to spread misery on a global scale. He'll restrict it to Canada. In this, Harper would be worse, simply because the Cnadain parlimentary system enshrines near-absolute power in its majority governments (Reagan was checked by a Democrat-dominated House). Fortunately, there will be no Con majority.

Didja not read the link above? It neatly punctures teh myth that reagan ended the Cold War and Communism. In reality, his hostility and brinksmanship pronolnged it, strengthening Soviet hardliners, and delaying reforms that were already in motion in reaction to a decaying system. But, as the saying goes, when forced to choose between the truth and the legend, your lot will always print the legend.

Oh brother. A perfect example of a reductio ad absurdum argument, as those the volume if imports tells the tale of how those goods were produced. Certainly, capital has a global reach, but it is rooted in national markets (U.S., Japan, etc.). The "home market" is the "strategic base of operations" for capital, where the largest share of output is produced, where research and development is concentrated, and where control and ownership are centered. It's at this level where the trade you speak of occurs. However, the third world continues to be western corporations' go-to source of cheap labor, markets, and low-cost raw materials. This is demonstrated by the increased flow of capital into third world nations (foreign investment in the Third World represents about 35 percent of total foreign investment). This has been facilitated by the removal of barriers to free trade and the closer integration of national economies. Now, on paper, this would seem to be a good thing. In practice, however, it creates a system in which third world economies are structurally dependant on first world nations, thus making them subordinate. It depends. Trade relationships ar emore nuanced than the simple volume of goods. For instance: what form do these imports take?? If, as you state, trade transactions always benifit the seller, why is there stlil a disparity between the economy of Indonesia and other third world nations, and the west? By your logic, the third world, which, as I said, is the source of most of the labour and raw materials employed by western economies and tehir surrogates, the third world should have the west over a barrel. The reality, global trade is far more complicated than your simple numbers would have us believe. WTF? They "queue up" because the influx of foreign capital and the liberalized trade regulations that allow the factories to open up in the first place have the effect of destroying existing local economic structures, leaving citizens with few options. Such a simplistic analysis! Sadr's militia had the strategic advantage in that the U.S. could not afford to deploy "overwhelming firepower" to deal with them, which forced them to negotiate a cease fire, the terms of which were security duties in Najaf and Kufa are to be turned over to the Iraqi police, while the Mahdi Army is supposed to stop carrying arms publicly. Further you're dealing in purely hypotheical scenarios: frankly the argument could be made that the only reason there is a Sadrist resistance is because there is an occupation to resist. I've heard of the facilitym, which was well-known to the intelligence community prior to the war as a former bio-chem weapons facility. Strangely, the only mention of this facility as a training camp camp in a Sept. 12, 2003 briefing taht you quoted from directly above. However, since then, we've heard nothing from the Pentagon about something that would undoubtedly be construned as a possible "smoking gun" connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam Gardiner's report "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II" indicated that, following the war, the Pentgon offered "no compelling evidence" that such a site existed. No kidding? But we're not talking about single test tubes. We're talking about,as Rumsfeld claimed on numerous occassions before the war "large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons including VX and sarin and mustard gas". Even if you consider that Iraq long ago lost the ability to make such materials, the means to create enough bulk weaponized material, as well as the delivery systems necessary, were out of their reach. Now, no doubt you'll say that they could hand off one anthrax vial to terrorists. Apparently, so could you. So perhaps we should dispatch the 4th Armoured division to your rumpus room. It seems to me that you see that your case for drawing a comparison to contemporary Iraq and the post-war Axis powers is weak, sio you'r enitpicking on a single detail in hopes of undermining the entire argument. I'm not gonna get sucked in to your niggling.

Are you familiar with the term "consent". It's the reason why there wil be no slippery slide into pedophilia, bestiality and other bugbears of the anti-gay rights crowd. I never mentioned hate speech laws, just correcting your ridiculous statement that there'snever been acts of genocide in this country.

The "gray area" line is an argumentum ad absurdum. Currently, pedophilia is prohibited by law and by society at large. Ask the folks who populated North America before we got here. Well, the surviving ones, anyway.

The answer to this is so blindingly obvious I can't believe I'm bothering: Because people are seldom reasonable.

The myth of the Gipper. The stupidity of Ronald Reagan.

Seems to be that's what I'd call homophobic behavior. It's not the bugbear of political correctness at work: It's common sense.

They're even beating their own. Link.

No link, 'cause its everywhere. Any thoughts, folks? Personally, his passing for me calls to mind Hunter S. Thompson's statement on the death of Nixon: "If he was a son of a bitch while he was alive, dying hasn't improved him any."

So I guess all those labels that say "Made in Indonesia" are just covers for the booming manufacturing business in Grosse Point, Michigan. You seem to view the rise of someone like al-Sadr to power as fait accompli, notwithstanding the highly factionalized nature of Iraqi society and the simple fact that Sadr does not speak for all Shiite's, let alone all Iraqis. However, if we are to accept that theory, I think its worth asking how things got so bad as to make an imposed "caretaker" government backed by a foreign military force the only option. Clearly, this situation could have been avoided or at least mitigated with careful planning from the get go (again, this is assuming that the stated goals of the coalition are true). Sponsoring terrorists means giving them the means to carry out terrorist actions. Saddam promoted terrorism with his payments, but that's hardly the same as "sponsoring" or enabling terrorists. When I hear sponsor, I think of the Saudi sponsored training camps and schools. WMD: I'm sure, given the opportunity, Saddam would have pushed for WMD. However, he had neither the oportunity or the ability to do so. That's ridiculous, and certainly doesn't bolster your argument. When you actually look at the period in question, you'll see Iraq was plagued by the same , economic, ethnic, religious, and ideological conflicts that we see today, which overwhelmed the British-imposed structure. Thus, using Japan as an example of how to build a democracy in a country where ther eis none fails to take into accont those factors. Also, that was more than 70 years ago, whereas Japan's short-lived democratic movement was almost certainly still fresh in the minds of the people charged with building the post-war democracy.

Let me get this straight: Harper wants to buy at least two hybrid aircraft carriers? How much are these tinker toys supposed to cost and, more importantly, what in dog's name do we need 'em for?

August! We agree on something! I'm tired of hearing about "activist judges", when the courts actually have a significant role to play in our parlimentary system. Under this system, the Supreme Court has the ultimate power of judicial review over Canadian federal and provincial laws' constitutional validity. So, when the SCC justices upheld the Ontario Court's decision, they were simply doing their job.

To be fair...he IS the Prime Minister. I don't get it. What's he supposed to do? Stay home and get pilloried by the media and opponents for ignoring an important event in Canadian history?

Oh nonsense Oh yes! Harper seeking advice from former PM Mulroney on transition Tory government Nobody on "the left" loved the Mulroney PC's. As I said, they were just as bad (if not worse) than the ChretMart Liberals. Frankly no one on the left likes the Liberals either (Joe, Clark, FYI, hasn't "jumped", but is backing Scott Brison; Clark is officially retired from politics). As I said: they're pretty much the same party.

Did you have a point?

On the contrary: Mulroney is perched at Harper's elbow during this campaign. Meanwhile, many of the NDPs former BC stalwarts are now showing their true colours and shilling for the Liberals. Canadians need to know that the new Cons are just like the old Cons (though conspicuously absent the "Progressive" part of their moniker), the same crooked bunch who wallowed in pork, sold Canadian jobs down the river with free trade, began the process of gutting Canada's social network while fattening up their friends in the private sector. Actually, they sound a lot like the Martin Liberals, proving that the Grits and the Cons, like the Democrats and Repuiblicans down south, are basically different wings of the same party. A Conservative government would mean much higher taxes for lower and middle income Canadians, as they slash taxes for the wealthy and corporations, smaller social programs, far more laws to reign in any behavior (like gay marriage) that the Cons and their Bible-slinging base disapprove of and a total subservience to the U.S. on foreign policy, leading to further erosion of our soverignty and reputation on the world stage. Tit for tat.

...who'll continue the exact same policies as Bush, albeit with a moderated rhetorical tone. Oh goody.

That's not democracy; that's mob rule. By the modern practical definition of democracy, any country that denies a segment of its population the same rights and fredoms as the majority, even if by majority consent, cannot realistically be termed a democracy. Bull crap. Abortion is a women's issue. Every significant abortion crusader, and the vast majority of thos eon the frontlines of the fight to retain a women's right to choose are women.

Mised this earlier. Make a stand? On what? Harper has been bending over backwards to avoid being seen as making a stand. Instead, he keeps ducking behind "free votes" and mealy-mouthed non-denials. However, his party (like the back bencher calling for third party abortion counselling) and supporters (like the one who assaulted a heckler at a Harper rally yesterday) are more than happy to step up and show what the Cons are really about. Harper has been getting a free ride up until the past couple of days. As long as the Cons were een as teh tax-cut party, the media was happy to go along for the ride. But with the party's socially conservative base rising up to haunt Harper, the media's getting on him and he's starting to get frustrated. Frustrated, I suspect, becaus ethe non-answers he's been relying on won't hold up much longer and that if he steps out of line, it'll deal the party's chances a major blow.

If Commons held a free vote and passed a law institutionalizing racial segregation, would you hail it as a victory for democracy? What you forget is that one of the bedrock principles of democracy entails protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Just because a certain viewpoint is endorsed by the majority doesn't mean its the right one for the government to adopt.

Putting aside for the moment the theory that the torture and abuse at Iraqi was systematic and reflective of Pentagon policy, I think the question of "how can people do such things" is a good one. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, an ex Army Ranger and psychologist, theorizes that humans are deeply resistant to killing or harming other human beings. This resitance is, in wartime, problematic for armed forces. That's why much of modern military training is devoted to breaking down those natural barriers: recruits are broken down and rebuilt into desensetized killing units. Soldiers are taught to view enemys as subhuman, thus excusing actions that are inherently abhorrant and antithetical to social norms. The enemy is not another man, but a "gook" or "raghead". So ultimately, the torture and abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo are indicators of the level of success the military has had in conditioning their troops to be as efficient as possible. In other words, it's not an abberation or a case of a "few bad apples", but the logical result of a system devoted to destroying the humanity of its participants as well as its victims. (This is, of course, not to excuse any of the perpetrators; ultimately the choice was there's regardless of where the orders orginated.) However, even sadder than this is the fact that all too many citizens of the self-proclaimed defender of democracy are willing to excuse these acts as a necessary part of the "war on terror". To a large extent, much of the population has become as conditioned to accept brutality as the soldiers committing the acts. IMO, this is problematic as it represents the growth of a culture of exceptionalism and superiority that is both contrary to the fundamental values of a egalitarian democracy, as well as a cultural time bomb that could threaten the rest of the world.

But talking the language of "fairness" and "accountability" while pushing a not-so hidden agenda? That's okay? But then, given Harper's history, the company he keeps and the types that reside in his "cabinet", maybe his agenda is not so "hidden" after all.

KK, careful you don't pull a muscle or dislocate something. Make sure you stretch before you pat yourself on the back so vigourously. How can it be a "democratic process" when the vast majority of Iraqis have no say in their "new" government, agovernment made up entirely of "Iraqis" (mostly long-time exiles) handpicked by the CPA? Obviously, the U.S. didn't consider the dispute over the presidency a hill worth dying on, especially since they retain full control over policy, security (such as it is) and financing of the "new" Iraqi government. Not to mention ramming their pick down the IGC's throat would further damage the "new" government's already shaky credibility. New Iraqi government clone of old. The "new" Iraqi government (regardless of what figurehead tops it) is dominated by individuals who owe their positions to the U.S. Authority (defined by sociologist Max Weber as "the likelihood that a command will be obeyed") will still rest with the American until a general election can be called. Of course a general election won't happen until the security situation improves. Of course the security situation won't improve until the Americans are gone. Only they aren't leaving. Ever.