Black Dog

Nobody becomes wealthy in a vacum. As appealing as the self-aggrandizing myth of th eself-made millionaire is, the reality is that no one gets anywhere without relying at some point on a service or institution paide for by tax dollars. Taxes pay for more than just social programs (although, in this country, our social programs are very important). Taxes pay for roads, sewers, schools and countless other important services that we otherwise wouldn't have. Over the past 25 years, tax revenues have fallen while services have declined and infrastructure crumbled. That's not a coincidence. That's an amazing feat, given the average Canadian pays about 35 per cent of their income in taxes. You're certainly paying mor ethan your share, then. How generous of you. Which is precisely why, in an egalitarian and democratic society, steps must be taken to mitigate or eliminate these inequalities. The idea that only the wealthy can spur economic growth is a myth. The government and individuals and small businesses are fully capable of spurring economic growth, the government by investing in services and infrastructure, individuals by spending their money and the small businesses that are the real engine of the economy by expanding, growing and reinvesting. As it stands, tax cuts which would reduce government revenues while maximizing the amount of wealth consolidated in the hands of a few poses the greater real threat to service delivery than the theoretical flight of the rich. I pay my taxes. In fact I recently got a raise which bumped me up a bracket, meaning I pay more now. And you know what? I don't bitch about it, because i know that I wouldn't have my job if it weren't for the schools that taught me, the roads that took me there and the hospitals that kept me healthy. All paid for by taxes. That's exactly how I see the government: it's there to provide services. We differ on how that is to be done and who is to be trusted to do it.

One question for willy: do you consider the current tax system to be fair and equitable? The point of progressive taxation is simple: the wealthy have the overwhelming beneficiaries of the economic policies of the past few decades, such as high interest rates and a steadily decreasing top marginal tax rate. Much of the tax burden has been shifted to lower and middle income Canadians, who not only must run businesses, work and raise families, but also provide the resources the government needs to supply services (services, I must add, that benefit all citizens). Fairness and equality are not the same thing. An equal tax system would see everyone pay the same rate: however, a fair tax system ensures that people are taxed according to their ability to pay. That's your first error. Your second is in equating wealth with merit. While I'm sure there are many hard-working rich folks out there, the simple fact is not all rich people worked for their wealth. Are the Bronfmans better people for inheriting their wealth? Is Belinda Stronach a harder worker than your average truck driver or school teacher? One question for Kilege: do you even know what the word "fascist" means?

Based on the repeated failures of the program so far, as well as the fact that the greatest threats to U.S. security are not from nuclear capable nations, you can reasonably predict that the program is a waste of time and money. Link. No, we don't have to support it. But we should be concerned, given our role in North America's air defense command. I don't think another Cold War is necessarily a bad thing, as it would check the U.S.'s current fetish for empire building. Any way you slic eit, though, abrogating treaties you signed on to in good faith sets a very bad precedent for others to follow.

Hardly new. Canada had an inheritence tax until the Mulroney Cons repealed it in the '80s. That's why the NDP also want sto go after offshore tax shelters like the kind Paul Martin's Canadian Steamship lines used to duck taxes here. Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. However, inheritence taxes are a bete noir of the Republicans, and the U.S inheritence tax is being phased out as part of Bush's last round of tax cuts (I understand this cut has a sunset clause though).

Not a bad idea in theory, I'm not sure about the proposed execution. But, given they are a tax on unearned income, inheritance taxes are fundamentally a sound idea. I mean, they even have 'em in the U.S.

Arrest and detention without due process or without regard to guilt or innocence, torture and murder were hallmarks of the Hussein regime. Now the U.S. and its allies are doing the same things, the only difference is the means. Roots of torture. Check out some of Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker articles, especially "America's Gulag" for more. Does unlimited detention without due process not constitute a violation of human rights? Also, British nationals who were detained at Gitmo alleged torture interagation techniques were used. Amnesty International and Human Rights watch have both chronicled allegations of abuse at various U.S. detention facilities, as well as the U.S.'s practice of exporting prisoners to Pakistan, Jordan, Uzbekistan and Morrocco, countries less squeamish about torture. There's info everywhere that indicates what happened at Abu Gharab is the rule, not the exception.

If it doesn't work (and it is a violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty), then it's ineffective. If it's ineffective and costly, it's wasteful. It's a white elephant, corporate welfare at its worst. Stephen Harper for one. Paul Martin has also hinted Canada would sign on. Weapons in space could lead to a new arms race. As well, the US currently dominates space technology and is seeking to expand that dominance, which I'm sure would suit some people fine, but worries the crap out of others Funny, most NDPers I know are middle class white males. White males are, historically and contemporarily, the most privileged group in our society. Any discrimination they face is but a fraction of what white, male institutions dole out. That doesn't make that discrimination right, but we need to correct the inherent inequalities of our society somehow.

So? You wanted clarification on the ND's concerns with the ABM program, and I responded. This is still an issue, though not a hot one right now. Harper would sign Canada up for the costly, ineffective and wasteful program. First: the NDP opposes the very principle of weaponizing space. Second: the missile defense program does indeed have a space-based component. Bush moves toward 'Star Wars' missile defense

I know I cry for the long-oppressed white, straight men of this country. Since this is the only remotely tangible critique of ND policy, I'll address this. The NDP's concer with the ABM program is that it is the beginning of a renewed bid to weaponize space. Foreign Affairs critic Alexa McDonough has said: "American documents confirm that [missile defense] is absolutely about the weaponization of space…. It’s a warm-up act.” Missile defence and the weaponization of space Apparently, the only person confused here is you.

We could call this "soft" imperialism, where the West (embodied by the U.S.) is the coercive apparatus necessary to bring democracy to the "failed states" of Central Asia. There are, of course a number of flaws with this theory. First, it takes entirely for granted that America is genuinely interested in spreading democracy. It simply assumes alturistic motives of the west (or a benign selfishness borne of self-preservation). Of corse, one must first discard centuries of direct and indirect intervention against democratic movements, ongoing support of oppressive regimes and so forth. We've no reason to assume spreading democracy has ever been a motive of U.S. foreign policy and have little reason to believe it now. Secondly it assumes that the west and the west alone has the monopoly on democratic ideas and that the recalcitrant peoples of the Mid East and Asia must be brought into the fold (by force if necessary) by us, lest they tear themselves apart. This is underlined by a barely concealed contempt for the billions of "them" who live there. Their opinions, it seems, don't matter. We will tell them what's best for them. However, this theory (terribly flawed, paternalistic and borderline racist) is the flavour of the day, both among the staunch neocons driving White House policy and the liberal elites among the SCLM (So-Called Liberal Media). Embracing imperialism. No dialogue, no discussion and certainly no attempt to understand the views of the billions of people being imposed upon) just mor eof the same crap that these people have been fighting for centuries: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The two largest government contractors in Iraq are Bechtel Corp. and Halliburton Co. Yeah, i guess you're right. We certainly can't leave Iraq to the Iraqis because it's obvious that they are incapable of managing themesleves. Like I said, the same paternalistic, racist, imperialist crap we've been hearing for hundreds of years. The language is the same and so are the motivations: pillage and plunder. I'm still waiting for a shred of definitive evidence connecting Al Q or Iran with the insurgency. That aside, your entire view of the insurgency is predicated on your preconceptions of a benevolent occupier. In your mind, any resistance to the occupation is inherently antidemoctratic. It's a view point coloured by your own perceptions of what's happening in Iraq and the U.S.'s intentions. I trust the Iraqis have a better handle on the situation. Look at Fallujah as a microcosm of Iraq: the U.S. went in to destroy the insurgency, but were forced to withdraw and turn over security to the "Fallujah Brigade" (in effect, the insurgents), led by a former Republican Guard general. Suddenly, Fallujah is quiet. But it's a tremendous threat to Arabs living within territory occupied by Israel. I guess it depends on how you define terrorism. Terrorism is alive and well in Rafah. Whereas Iraq's democracy is just humming along? We're talking about introducing democracy to a region that hasn't seen it in ages, if at all. It would have taken a long time, but the cost would have been much lower. Christ, people keep saying the process of democracizing Iraq will be a "long hard slog"; seems strange that haste would be an issue now. But the occupation is making more people hate "us". It's even turning people who once greeted the U.S. as liberators into resistance fighters. Ever ask why these countries people's are poor? Why they are ruled by repressive regimes? Who keeps the thugs in power? Who does business with the Saddams, Sauds and Murabeks of the region? Who benefits?

Terrorist tortoises feel IDF's wrath. Whenever I think I've become so jaded about mankind's capacity for cruelty that nothing could surprise me, I read soemthing like this and feel nothing but rage and helplessness. We're continually treated to lectures about the cruelty of Saddam Hussein and other thugs, but where are the defender's of human rights when it's one of "ours" (a westernized, democratic nation) perpetrating such heinous acts? Silent.

Totally beside the point. This is a country that claims to be there to bring freedom to an oppressed people, but is now using the same tactics as the old boss (in the old bosses' old digs no less) against predominately innocent detainess. The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror Red Cross blasts Guantanamo

Wrong-o! Smith was threatened with a complaint to the Human Rights Commission for refusing to declare Pride Week (even as he gave city sanction to pretty much anyone else who asked). Pride events, such as the parade, had been going for some time regardless of the City's symbolic blessing. When was the last time someone held a gun to your head and made you take in a pride parade. If you don't like it, just don't go. Duh. First of all, August, stick your condescension up your ass. Second: New Zealand's experiment was a disaster. The debt ballooned, economic growth shuddered to a halt (actually, the economy shrank) and unemployment jumped from 4 per cent to nearly 20 per cent. That's why so many "reforms" are being rolled back. What none of you seem to get is that neoliberal economic policies are specifically designed to benefit a tiny number of people, while the resst suffer the consequences. They've been tried time and again. And every time, they fail.

The Liberals have an anti-Jack site too, called "Say Anything Jack." I can't even begin to do decipher this mangled syntax enough to respond. Bzzt! Wrong! There are many, many differnt varietie sof socialism. just as consvatives have various subgroups (like anarcho-capitalist libertarians), so too does socialism. In other words: do you want to be f**ked softly or f**ked hard? Marx used socialism to describe a phase of human society that would follow capitalism and precede communism (communism being a classless society in which all property is owned by the community as a whole and where all people enjoy equal social and economic status).

Give me a break. No one likes foreign occupation. Most Iraqis want the U.S. gone. People don't need to conduct a referendum to determine whether or not an occupying power should be resisted. According to you, revolutionary movements throughout history should have stopped and taken polls before proceeding. Imagine this scene unfolding across Europe circa 1943: "Well, fellas, we lost the vote, I guess we just have to learn to live under the Nazis because we don't have an expressed mandadte by the peopel to fight back." No where are you getting the 85 per cent figure from? "Simple math" using what figures? Explain. Um..In case you've been napping, the Palestinian "issue" is a major bone of contention in the Arab world. It's the source of much anti-Israel and anti-USA sentiment and a continued focus of terrorist organizations (Remembe rthe four mercenaries killed in Fallujah? The crowd that dragged the bodies through the streets was chanting the name of Hamas leader Sheik Yassin). One would think someone interested in fighting terrorism would want to take steps to ensure stability and act to remove some of the things that motivate terrorists. Not to mention the fact that Israel's record of human rights violations are beyond the pale for a country that calls itself a democracy. Specious logic, at best, given that Iraq had no connections to global terrorism or to the 9-11 attacks. If anything, the invasion of Iraq has made the threat of terrorism worse by fuelling more anti-American sentiment. Now look who's being fatuous. I don't believe democracy can be implemented by the military machinations of a foreign power. As I stated before, if the U.S. was actually interested in spreading democracy and fighting terror they would have started somewhere liek Saudi Arabia, a client state and the premier sponsor of terrorist organizations in the region. The US could have nurtured homegrown democracy movements and used their clout to push for democratic reforms. Instead, they went after Iraq, a place where any sane person would know that a foreign backed democratic experiment would have little chance of success. Which leaves us with two possibilities: either the U.S leadership is hopelessly incompetent and naive and honestly expected to be greeted with rose petals by throngs of jubilant Iraqis ready to take the reigns of a new democracy, or the whole business of democracy is a smokescreen, a bit of political slight of hand to dazzle the folks back home. Uh. Iraq Body Count's numbers are estimates . As the U.S. general who led the invasion said "We don't do body counts.". Again, though, the Saddam's brutality is not the issue (especially since-whoops!- the U.S. supported him while he merrily filled mass graves). It remains a question of are Iraqis better off"? (A question you totally sidestepped)

Interesting point, KK, considering just 5 months ago, the "rat" in question was sitting next to Laura Bush at a banquet and was being hailed as the likely candidate for the leadership of the new Iraq. Odd that, despite Chalabi's shady dealings in the past (such as conviction for bank fraud in Jordan) and the Iraq National Congress' work in funneling false WMD claims to the media during the rush to war, it's only now that they are wising up to his crookedness. I suspect this is more about optics. Chalabi is very unpopular with Iraqis and was very much seen as America's catspaw in the Governing Council. By purging him, the White House/Pentagon are trying to salavage the credibility of their leadership.

Your a goddamned liar, AF. Where have communities been forced by human right scommissions to hold Pride events? Put your money where your mouth is, junior. prove it. Otherwise, stop wasting bandwith and take your pointless obsession with having things shoved down your throat elsewhere.

That would be at the peak of the New Zealand neoliberal "experiment" (1984-1988). Prior to these reforms, New Zealand was even more regulated than Canada. The austerity measures introduced to fight inflation involved massive economic "shock treatment", which included mass privatization and deregulation. Of course, the whole "experiment" was an abject failure and many of the reforms of that period are being reversed. Still more unsubstansiated fear-mongering with nothing to suppport it. You guys can't do better?

Whatever. As I've said elsewhere, there's something in the water out in BC that turns all politicians ciorrupt. But creative budget accounting is hardly th edomain of the NDP. here in Alberta, the KleinCons have mastered the art of hiding surpluses by creating various "funds" that can't be touched. Then they use their supposed poverty to justify spending cuts, low wages and unpopular polkicies like elctricity dergulation. Well, garsh, you mean some of them politicians might be a bit shady? Golly! I may be a simple country boy but I'm not an idiot. I know damn well that power corrupts and that even the best intentioned or high-minded individuals can be won over by greed. But I like to have a little faith, especially in politicians who actually demand we expect more from the government than we tend to get. In my mind, that means people who don't make greed and self-interest the cornerstone of their personla philosophy.

In Canada, free speech is constrained by law only in cases where teh speech constitutes hate propaganda (ie. inciting violence against an identified group) or threats against a specific individual. It appears to me the Khadrs are guilty of no more than having unpleasant opinions. If they're guilty of anything else, that's for the law to decide. And who is to determine what constitutes acceptable speech? I don't care much for hate speech laws, but accept them as an imperfect solution to a serious problem. But if you find someone's personal view points repugnant, the answer isn't suppression, it's countering their views. Not to defend the Khadr's, but their views are no worse than anything you can read on FreeDominion or Adam Yoshida.

Come on. A mature democracy should make the correct decision, the decision that best reflects the will of the people and not sacrifice democratic principles in the interests of haste or political expediency. We're talking about more than a few dodgy ballots. We're talking wholesale fraud. Check out Grag palasts work on the Florida election results. It's eye-opening stuff. Link.

Don't forget that you have to extoll the virtues of personal responsibility while doing it.

No, I'm saying the Bank of Canada and Mulroney government were particularily fervrent in their pursuit of zero inflation. They even overshot their own targets and reached the mark far earlier than expected. new Zealand, another zero-inflation crusader, managed around 1 per cent inflation during the same period. I don't have any figures handy to compare interest rates, though I imagine Canada's was in line with the U.S.'s. Runaway inflation? canada's infalation rate at the end of the Trudeau years was IIIRC) around 7 or 8 per cent, which is managable. We're not talking pre-war Germany with 40 per cent and higher inflation. Inflation can be offset by economic growth, provided th einflation rate remains around 10 per cent. It's a balancing act. However, during the Mulroney years, we saw the balance tip firmly in the direction of anti-inflation measures, which sunk the economy as a whole, but reaped enormous profits for credit holders such as the major banks.

I'll save the right wingers the trouble. It's Trudeau's fault!! It's Rae's fault! It's Glen Clark's fault! See, isn't being a right winger easy? It's always someone elses's fault.