Black Dog

That's worse than the original idea. Not only does it not address the security concerns inhjerent in electronic polls, no government would get anything done if they had to go to the polls every month because of a fickle electorate. Don't even get me started on the phraseology of your questions. The problem isn't one of mechanics, but of the process itself. People don't vote becuse they feel alienated from the system and that their voices don't count, not becuase making an X on a piece of paper is too hard.

Both reject gay marriage. Both oppose abortion. Both favour increased military spending and the "war on terror". Both favour private health insurance. Both favor free-trade and tax cuts, two hallmarks of the neoliberal economic agenda. The Cons want closer ties to the U.S.. The Republicans want their allies to fall in line behind the U.S. at all times. the list goes on.... I agree, but then AF's complete and consistent disregard for facts, proof or any other hallmarks of "civilized debate" show he has no interest in engaging in it. I'm simply humouring him.

You haven't the faintest idea, do you? The ACLU fronts for a range of civil liberties issues, including abortion, but also has taken up many right-wing causes. The ACLU recently came to Rush Limbaugh's defense and also counts many hard right libertarian conservatives (such as Georgia Senator Bob Barr) among its membership. With regard to the ACLU's defense of NAMBLA, you (to my utter lack of surprise) completely misrepresent the issue. Here's the story from the horse's mouth: Link And more: Link.Also, the ILGA kicked NAMBLA out in 1994. That's 10 years ago, if you can count that high. All of this is, of course, not really relevant to the duiscussion of NDP policy today in Canada. On that subject: Prove it. Y'know, I've know some intelligent, moderate and articulate conservatives, small-"C" and otherwise, and, while I disagree with many of their views, I respect them. AF is not one of those individuals but is a lying ignoramus who perpetuates the stereotype of conservatives as Bible-thumping, homophobic, bigotted rednecks pushing a narrow, fundamentalist agenda that would make teh Taliban proud.

StatsCan via the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Opponents of unions and of wage increases tend to point out extreme examples (see above), while ignoring the very real FACT that there has been an overall decline in personal income over the past few decades. For instance, between 1990 and 1997, average after-inflation personal incomes declined by 7% (before-taxes). This is, of course the direct result of a tight labour market, itself encouraged by the anti-inflation polices favoured by banks and capital owners. These policies maintain a high level of unemployment, causing more people to compete for fewer jobs, which in turn ensures wages remain low and profits remain high. In the meantime there has been an increase in outsourcing, downsizing and "labour flexibility"- that is, part-time, temporary and contract employment- which further weakens the power of organized labour. Free trade laws also undermine wages by allowing capital, goods and jobs to move freely across borders (unless, of course wage demands-such as wage freezes or even rol backs- are met). These policies affect us all a lot more than the modest gains of unions. It's not "greedy unions" that are responsible for the decline of Canadians' standard of living, but corporations and shareholders and their accomplises in government, all of whom are eager for a bigger piece of the economic pie. By union bashing, we shoot ourselves in the foot. Labour squabbles amongst themselves for scraps while shareholders and corporations laugh all the way to the bank.

Apparently, freedom has it's limits. White House plans limits to Iraq sovereignty Basically the "new" Iraq will be free to do whatever it pleases, so long as it toes the U.S. line. That's freedom? As for "mob rule", that phrase has long been used as a perjorative for democracy. After Saddam was toppled, the U.S should have immediately turned control over Iraq's civil administration to a U.N.-administered body for a speedy transition to Iraqi authjorities (real Iraqis, not carpetbaggers like Chalabi and others on the G.C).

Well first someone will have to explain to Bush, slowly, using small words, just who Paul Martin is and where this "Canada" place is located. Seriously though, expect Martin to kiss major ass to deflect the Cons' criticisms that the GGrits are "anti-American". I doubt this will have any significant impact. If he softballs Bush, expect right-leaning Grit hardliners to nod sagely with approval, while the small "L" liberals roll their eyes, but any boost will be purely short term. (Unles Martin opts to take up residence in Bush's colon a la "Irish Eyes" Mulroney's fellating of Reagan.) Harper will watch closely and jump on any precieved slight towards his future masters in Washington.Mostly however, he'll be preaching to the Con choir.

Fadel TorStar OpEd Of course some here would probably characterize this as grandstanding (because god knows the personality cult around international humanitarian workers rivals that of a Britney Spears). Anyway, a fascinating piece detailing the forgotten victims of the war. Funny that we here more of dead American soldiers (especially millionaire football players) tahn we do of the actual people they are obstinately "liberating".

Considering you're usually full of crap, I would think you'd be right at home in a sewer.

WOOSH! That's the sound of whatever credibility you might have had flying out the window. Ditto:

Thanks for making my point, which is that it's rather myopic to blame immigrant unemployment on a (perceived) lack of skills when there are so many other factors at work.

No they are INDIRECTLY targeting INNOCENT women and children by carrying out operations that will inevitably result in civilian deaths. WTF do you expect? that they'll set up in the middle of a field with a big sign saying "missles go here?" "Hamas base of operations"? Like traffic and apartments buildings? First, the (illegal) assasinations tend to result in large numbers of civilian casualties. Even if they do accomplish their objective of killing Hamas leadership, the inevitable civilian casualties caused by the IOF's heavy handed tactics feed anti-Israel sentiment and push more people to groups like Hamas. The simple fact that the number of Israeli deaths on Sharon and Likud's watch have far exceeded the number of Israeli deaths in the previous 35 years seems to indicate the repressive and heavy-handed tactics aren't working. Sure. But first, why don't you hang out in a Ramallah cafe, assuming you can get through the check points, past the wall, avoid the bulldozers destroying homes. And make sure you steer clear of any wheelchair bound septegenarians, lest a helicopter gunship launch rockets to take out such a dangerous target.

The Canadian unemployment rate is 7.4 per cent. It's safe to assume many of those are born and bred Canadians. So what's their excuse?

So the puppet show will continue. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Prtofit, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. But, contrary to what some might think, health care is not a commodity to be sold and paid for, like cars, TV's and dishwashers. It's a vital public service and, as such, the focus should be on providing the best possible service to everyone, regardless of income or ability to pay. Take a look at the profit-driven U.S health care system where more than 40 million people are uninsured and tell me if that's really a road we want to go down.

Uh..your numbers don't back you up. According to them, we're still gaining more than we're losing. Can you substaniate your claim? Because the Arar's are immigrants? Have you heard of her husband, Maher Arar?

Another canard. There are other ways for the government to generate revenue, such as increasing revenues collected from resource industries. (The Klein government has killed that golden goose: Alberta takes in less than half of the revenue per unit of oil and gas produced in the province than the Lougheed government did 15 years ago. Alberta also claims a much smaller share of the resource pie than governments in other major oil and gas producing regions. So there's billions of dollars out there, waiting to be tapped.) Raising taxes (or more specifically, establishing a progressive taxation system) is still the best way to raise revenue. But let's talk a few solutions: A national Pharmacare program. A national plan would help control drug expenditures, which are one of the fastest rising health costs. A national home care program Increased focus on health education and promotion - both to promote healthy lifestyles and to address broader social factors like poverty and inadequate education that are linked to poor health. Stable funding at teh both the federal and provincial levels. Increase efficiency by establishing alternatives to fee for service practices and explore cooperation between health service providers

So, wiseass, who is the new government going to be? I asked this before, you named the current council, which is wrong. So, we're two months away from th ehandover-shouldn't we have a clue as to who will lead the new Iraq by now?

No where did I say we had to abandon everything else to invest in health care. Indeed, underfunding of infrastructure, municipalities and public services other than health care is chronic as well. The problem is we have a province that has thrown billions away on debt-elimination (as oppossed to a sensible debt management policy) and still accumulated vast surpluses while drastically slashing programs and costs. This has, predictably, led to a decline in quality across the board. Problem is, they want user fees in addition to premiums (themselves a regresssive tax). This in a province that boasts of low taxes? Consider the U.S. spends more on health car per capita, yet 43 million people have no health coverage and another 50 million have inadequate coverage. That's the "private" system in action. The problem with two-tiered health system is that not everyone can afford to pay for health services on their own. In a two tier system, doctors and other medical staff could make more money in the private system. With fewer doctors available to work in the public system, waiting lists grew longer. The government was also forced to dramatically increase the amount it pays doctors in order to keep them working in public hospitals. The result: rising costs for taxpayers. Another problem with two-tiered medicine: it doesn't work. Britain, the U.S., Australia, Sweden have all tried the private model and, in every case, costs have increased while quality has deteriorated. I guess my final point about health care is that the health of citizens is a tremendous asset to a country. Health care services are simply too important to be given into the hands of those who's only interest is to maximize profits.

No. Alberta (and the feds) chopped funding to the health system dramatically. In three years (1993-1996), Alberta went from having the second highest level of spending per person on health care to the second lowest. Recent boosts to health care funding have not kept pace with the explosion in the province's population and corresponding need for services as well as inflation. Cuts also led to massive staff cutbacks, which remains a chronic problem in the system. There's just not enough staff, bed's and cash to meet the needs of the growing population. In the end, it's not a matter of affordability (that the system is inherently unsustainable is merely a canard), but of funding. Remember, Alberta is the richest province in Canada: howall those riches are spent is a matter of priorities. The KleinCons lack the political will to make sustainable, well-funded health care one of their key prorities. As for the "1/3 of provincial revenue"claim: it's not how the money is being spent, but what it's spent on. In other words, health care eats a bigger chunk of the pie not because of spending increases (which have been negligible; Alberta spent about 25 per cent of revenues on health in the '80s compared to roughly 35 per cent today), but because of reduced spending in other program areas. Delisting services isn't new. As for service fees: we already have 'em: they're called health care premiums, themselves a form of hidden taxation. By public insurance, I assume you mean the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan (y'know, the same one the KleinCons are eager to turnover to the greedy buggers in the insurance industry). In that case, yeah, I have a problem with profit motivated private operators raking it public dollars. Revenue. Then we need to look at how th esystem can address specific challenges like the one's you cited. Not throw the public model baby out with the bathwater of unjustified hysteria over rising costs.

Uh, one question: what about those who don't have internet access?

That's not what's coming out of Gary Mar. Mar wants federal health money with no strings The Alberta government wants increased private involvement in health care for two reasons: one is ideaological (the mistaken belief that private health is cheaper and more efficient) and the other is just greed (Alberta government officials enjoya pretty cozy relationship with insurance companies, that's why folks like Don Mazenkowski end up shilling for the private sector after their political careers end). Ultimately, the Cons are simply trying to put a bullet in the head of a once-effective public system that they've been starving for more than a decade.

So you've nothing to add? Then I guess we can put this one to bed.

First, you've yet to show that a) There aren't actually enough resources to go around (hint: "it's a matter of priorities"). that there is any direct correlation between money spent aiding Canadian citizens abroad (as oppossed to any other use of taxpayer funds) and declining social services at home. After all, the government funds amateur athletes and tons of other seemingly superfilous things: why all this anger at helping someone who was trying to do some good in this world? Besides: did the release of the fellow in question even cost us a dime? Yeah I know I'm all over going to Iraq now. I can't wait! I hope I get kidnapped and the government has to spend money getting me back. What's a little terror and a few beatings when I could be off sticking it to the man! </sarcasm> Finally, I'm really quite surprised at your sudden concern for the downtrodden in this country. When can we in the NDP expect your membership contribution?

Why? Explain. I refuse to play into your emotionally loaded false dichotomy.