Black Dog

That ship, I fear, has sailed. The Canadian military is already integrated up the wazoo with teh U.S. (NORAD, which Canada is part of, is under U.S. command). Meanwhile, Paul Martin and Steven Harper continue to push to adopt U.S. policies such as collaborating on the controversial missile defence system, handing over more intelligence on Canadian citizens to U.S. authorities, and dropping our higher standards and regulatory protection to U.S. levels. I think we can both agree that there's no way in amillion years we could deter the U.S.A. If they did try a military occupation of Canada (which is, incidentally, still on the books), the best we could manage is a guerrilla resistance. A sit is, though, they won't need to as canadian politicians and business interests are all to eager to bend over to the behemoth to the south. The system I proposed worked quite well for this country during both world wars. Cnada wouldn't even need required military service, as its not justified eitehr by the threats against us or by the simple reality that the country is too damn big and too damn inaccessable to invade. I have no desire to see my tax dollars go to support a geopolitical circle jerk. Now that I've pushed that metaphor to the brink, let me say that we need to stop giving a damn about how we are viewed by other nations and focus on providing for our own citizens needs. That's shoukld always be the numbe rone priority of government.

Okay, but what happens when national interests and , say, promoting democracy collide? As we've seen throughout history, the U.S.A has shown little recitence with stomping all ove rits suppossed principles when its necessary to protect its own interests. It's not a matter of avoiding a worse evil. Ity's a cynical policy that excuses evil in all forms when there is a short-term benefit to be gained. Thus, the U.S. will be forever locked in a cycle of destroying monsters of its own creation. You have a very pollyanna view of world geopolitics, Hugo. It doesn't take a genius to see that foreign policy is not based on "taking on problems and threats to world peace and freedom" but on protecting economic interests. In that respect, the U.S.A is no different than any other nation. However, it's the idea that the U.S. and its people are somehow special and their motives inherently noble that sticks in my craw. I never said "bourgeois". That's your construction. The dominant elite is a collusion of interests that include corporations, the media, various state appartus (like the de facto independent Pentagon), special interest lobby groups like the PNAC (Project for the New American century) and individual politicians and bureaucrats. As for your assertion that "The American political-economic system gives a constant fluid shifting of power and that power never concentrates", this is utter bollocks. It's no coincidence the players on the scene seldom change 9look at the volume of high placed Bush admin figures who help past positions with Bush 1, Reagan and back). As well, corporate convergance and mergers has seen wealth and power concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. If anything, power in the States is becoming increasingly static and the public's interests and views, as dramtically demonstrated by the 2000 election debacle, are not represented.

Screw the military. We don't need it. Our biggest military threat lies to the south and let's face it: we could never compete with the bloated u.s. military industrial complex. Peacekeeping is little more than a way for Canadians at home to pat themselves on the back and say what a great job we're doing, without questioning the motives of our involvement nor the circumstances that necessitate dit in the first place. Look at Afghanistan, where Canadian troops are acting as a proxy force for the U.S., keeping the lid on things there while the boss runs some errands in Iraq. Overall, most of the arguments as to why Canada needs a "strong" military seem to stem from some sort of insecurity over the size of our collective national dick. (Witness earlier comments about needing to play with the "big boys". ) Rather than washing billions of dollars down the drain for a bloated, directionless military, let's ditch the Freudian motivations and look at what we really need. 1) A small, core force that could react quickly to matters of national defense (borders, etc.) and, in the event of a large scale conflict, train and support a volunteer reserve force. 2) S&R and Maritime enforcement to be made the domain of agencies such as the R.C.M.P. 3) an foreign policy independant of the U.S. and the outdated NATO alliance. Pull us out of NATO na dbegin a full-scale review of military and foreign policy.

Haiti probably won't have any bearing on the campaign because (a) the U.S./Western media are in no way going to turn the question of U.S. involvement into a major issue. So far, they've dutifuly repeated the party line on the whole affair. ( There's no need for large-scale U.S. military involvement, as the proxy "rebels" have already done the dirty work of ousting Aristide. The fact is there are U.S. troops on the ground in Haiti right now. They are there to ensure the right guys (read: Washington's picks) get established and stability (which was compromised by the U.S.-backed factions in teh first place) is restored.

Wake up. That's already the case in North America, which would indicate that state-recognized gay partnerships are not the culprit.Anyway, as soon as I see the words "Weekly Standard", my eyes glaze over and blood starts coming out of my ears. But just to humour you, here is a rebuttal to Kurtz's article. Are gays "wrecking marriage in Scandanavuia"?

You're not welcome. First, you're clearly putting words in Albright's mouth. What was so horrifying about that quote? Imagine how shocked you would be if you found out that everything you thought you knew of your background was wrong. It'd be a shock to anyone. Second, none of this has any bearing on, well, anything. It's a non-issue. Given how important the Jewish constituency is to the Democrats, I'm surprised Kerry isn't out at Shabbat dinner sporting a yamukle. Anyway, give it a rest.

No. You lack credibility. Give me a break. Bush has done everything possible to stonewall the probe, from dithering on an extension, to editing key evidence prior to release, to editing testimony to refusing (in Condi's case) to testify at all. First: "repeating the exact garbage" is called "staying on meaasge", which is the same thing any communicator worth his or her salt would do. As for "rap politics" I agree: Bush's expolitation of 9-11 is indeed crap politics (I also love how they didn't even use real firefighters in the ad. This administration and its supporters have no shame). Well, Bush has never been seen near the grave of any of the servicemen who have died in Iraq and the Pentagon has expressly forbidden media coverage of the bodies coming home. i guess flag draped coffins are only appropriate for public view when its politically expeidient for the G.O.P.

Can you actually refute Chomsky's views? I guess not: all you can do is deny deny deny. I've not seen anyone pin the man down, which drives right-wingers absoultely batshit. Ah yes, the myth of the benvolant giant. Total crap, of course. the U.S. (nay, any nation) would seldom lift a finger were there not something to be gained. Even though you can't be bothered to read the articles posted or even form a coherent argument against it, Chomsky details the link between historical U.S intervention in Haiti and the economic motivations thereof. (I would also point out that you seem to have changed your view from when you stated: So your already contradicting yourself by saying the U.S. would not intervene unless it had something to gain, then saying the U.S intervened in the past in spite of having nothing to gain. So which is it?)As for your question of Cui bono, again, read the articles. As usual, it boils down to money. America (specifically, American businesses) have benefited from Haiti's instability by turning it intoo a dumping ground for U.S. exports (since abolishing tariffs on U.S. goods was one of the preconditions of agreements signed with the U.S. government under President Clinton in 1996). Of course, it should also be mentioned that the U.S. has not been shy about coming down hard on western hemisphere nations that flout the Washington-backed neoliberal economic model, a model that favours U.S. multinationals above all else by creating, as noted above, dumping grounds for exports, ensure supplies of cheap labour and generally maximize corporate bottom lines, which pipe through the corridors of power on a daily basis. The U.S. has, throughout its history, based foreign policy on the interests of wealthy elites and the business sectors. This latest chapter in Haiti's history is further evidence of that.

Picking up the discussion from here where the aptly-monikered Alliance Fanatic hurled this accusation: Of course, his own sources prove him wrong: (emphasis mine)So the fact is that it's okay under the law for a 40 year old to have sex with a 14 year old of the opposite sex. But the law made an exception for homosexual affairs; this exception was shown to be discriminatory. Whether you agree with the age of consent as it stands or not is irrelevant: there's no need to have two different sets of rules for straights and gays.

Whether Hay supported NAMBLA's goals or not (and it does seem like he did) is largely irrelevant. While he may be regarded as the "father" of the gay rights movement, his views are his own and not representative of the gay community as a whole. There's certainly division within the GLBT movement with respect to the issue of the IGLA and NAMBLA. NAMBLA: Out of the Movement's Bounds It should also be noted that NAMBLA was expelled from the IGLA in 2002.

Balls. We've seen this rot before back in the '80s. It was bogus economics then, it's bogus economics now. Tax Cut Insanity The Tax Cut Con (starving the beast) Interestingly enough, America's periods of greatest economic prosperity corresponded with (relatively) high tax rates for the rich. I don't whether to laugh or cry at this. If I were a Democrat, I know I'd be embarrassed to have had a president that led the nation through its period of greatest prosperity in decades. Better off under Bush?

That's a pretty sugar coated view of events, considering the U.S.A. had no problem with fascism when it was supporting Franco and trading with Nazi Germany. And the (misnomered) Islamic fascism was fine so long as it checked communism (as in Afghanistan in the 1980's) or ensured a steady flow of oil (as in Saudi Arabia up to thje present). Again we have the pervasive, wrongheaded and evil argument that the egregious actions committed by the U.S., directly or by proxy, are mistakes. If that's the case, America is one clumsy, stupid giant. However, that's not the reality. Foreign policy decisions, from supporting Saddam in the '80s against the Iranians to arming central American death squads (as in Colombia today) to overthrowing democratic regimes (as in Chile in '79 and Haiti today) are calculated, deliberate actions with intended consequenses. Wrong. Since it first stepped foot on the world stage, the U.S.'s primary mission is protection of its own national interests, in particular, those of the dominant elite. The rhetoric about democracy and freedom is the smokescreen.

An excellent piece on Haiti by Chomsky. As usual, Chomsky steps outside the mainstream press and "conventional wisdom" to nail down the motives behind almost two centuries of American intervention in Haiti.

Jack's a pragmatist. Sometimes you have to make compromises in order to serve the greater good. if climbining into the sack with the Libs helps get the NDP's democratic reforms (such as PR) through, and keeps the Reublicons out, so be it.

oops...image didn't work

Holy crap. Do you even bother reading any of the links I've put up? I can't believe that, in spite of ample historical evidence of U.S. interventionism in Haiti, the current allegations of U.S. complicity in Aristide's overthrow and the reams of other evidence indicating the U.S. has a long standing strategic interest in Haiti, that you simply stick your head in the sand. Okay, what are you basing this on? There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I'm sure that's what the White House wants the rest of us to do. "Move along folks, nothing to see here...." First: only a fool would think that the media shapes U.S. foreign policy. It's more like the other way 'round. Second: there's not been a massive public outcry for the U.S. to step in to Haiti. In fact, Aristide begged for foreign intervention in the crisis, which was refused until after he "fled" the country. Oh,and god forbid the news networks actually cover the news. You haven't read a damn thing about this, have you? Do you have a remotely credible argument as to why the U.S. was not involved? I've posted a number of views which point to U.S. involvement in the overthrow and the media's complicity in reporting the official line only. All you've managed are dismissals. So prove me wrong, kids.

Irrelevant. If he cited "Harry Potter" as his favorite book, you'd probably accuse him of pretending to be a wizard. Why not target his record or his views, instead of trying to make something of this non-issue. Geez, here I thought I was Irish Catholic . (Actually, I looked into it: maternal gramps was Catholic, paternal was Russian Orthodox.) Well if it was your intention to make an early play for "most ridiculous attempt at mud-slinging", then congratulations! You've done well. *rubs temples, sighs deeply* Hitler was dead by then. Again, what's your point?

First Augustia, thanks for posting some evidence of your claims. Second, the fact that Hay supported NAMBLA does not mean his views are representative of homosexuals in general. Third, this has no bearing on the issue of gay marriage. The argument that is ridiculous. Gay marriage was legalized in Denmark since 1989 and much of Scandanavia shortly thereafter. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in these countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have opened the door to legalized incest, pedophilia and bestiality? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken.

The Ouster of Democracy The Haiti situation is a prime example of the realities of U.S. foreign policy. Liberty, freedom and democracy are mere platitudes to be mouthed, even as they are trampled upon by their self-proclaimed defenders.

First, the initial article you quoted said: (emphasis mine) So Kerry himself was unaware until recently and it's apparent his gramps trook great pains to hide the fact that he was Jewish. Kerry, it should be pointed out again, is not. And since when is it "underhanded" to profess one's love for a novel? I don't know where either of my gramps were from. One was German, but from where i don't know, the other Ukranian. As for your charge of anti-semitism...pardon my language, but that's total bullshit. Jesus, the campaign hasn't even started yet and you're already sounding desperate. First: Stalin's Soviet Union was part of the Allied effort against the Nazis. In fact, the Soviet Union was what kept the Nazis from victory. Do you have a point? Secondly: we didn't have Volkswagens here during the war. Volkswagen didn't enter the North American market till 1949. Get your facts straight.

Well, it's a damn good thing none of those fears are part of NDP policy.

Do you have Kerry on record as denying his Jewish heritage? And, to say he's a Jew is incorrect: his grandfather was, Kerry is a practicing Catholic. It's still a non-issue. Indeed more could be made of the Conneticutt -born and raised Dubya making pretend he's a Texan. And that makes it right? Also, how many actually had their assets seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act?

Harper is a pious weasel who would move us further up Uncle Sam's sphincter than Martin could ever dream. the PM is a corrupt robber baron, Stronach a dilletente who would be nowhere without daddy (similar to Martin in that respect), Clement...ah who cares about him. So it's Jack, with his commitment to fiscal responsibility, social progress and democratic reform, all the way.

What the hell difference does it make if Kerry's grandfather was a Jew, an Irishman or the Shah of Iran, aside from having the good makings of a "three guys walk into a bar" joke? This has as much relevance to the campaign as the fact that Dubya's grandfather traded with the Nazis.

The problem here is viewing atrocities committed by or abedtted by the U.S. and its western allies as mistakes or lapses of "judgement", rather than calculated foreign policy decisions based on a idealogically-based realpolitik. Those billions of dollars of foreign aid (which includes the thriving arms trade with nations like Israel) always comes with strings attached. The current situation in Haiti is a prime example of the U.S.'s agenda, where a democratically elected government was overthrown with the tacit (and possible material) support of the current administration. I ndeed, the U.S.'s appalling record shows that, as much as it likes to cloak itself in the trappings of "freedom, liberty and democracy", its primary concern is maintaining political, economic and military dominance, even if that means trampling on those very principles.