Black Dog

What part about aid and money and goods to dictators, the supression of democracy and self-rule and support for terrorists don't you get? It would be far easier to take in the arguments for the U.S. actions in the War on Terror if its proponents would at the least acknowledge that Amaerica is by no means the benevolant force it's made out to be. Does this mean America is the greatest evil the world has ever known? No. History makes no judgements and the American Empire will be seen in a few hundred years as just another one of man's experiments (unless folks like CraigRead get their way and pull us all down to hell). It is not special, it is not unique, it is not a pinnacle of civilization. This is a core element of the current situation: in the eyes of many of its people, America can truly do no wrong (and if it does, well, it just makes "mistakes"). This form of blind nationalism is contrary to the very ideals that are supposed to make America the bastion of freedom it claims to be. You see it every day when people are called to "support the president" in a fascistic elevation of the nation's leadership to heroic status. As President Teddy Roosevelt said: The question is: do critics of the U.S.'s policies "hate America"? No. But we believe that the path America is heading down will not lead to a better world. We believe that America should lead by example, not brute force and coercion. I have higher expectations for America than I do for Osama bin Laden or any other power-mad thug. It's time the U.S.A started living up to it's own promise, rather than sinking down into the mud with its enemies.

Truthfully, I have my own doubts about bin Laden's status. However, I also believe the Bush admin recognizes how important it is to keep Osama's name out there for their own political purposes. bin Laden is America's own Emmanuel Goldstein. Oh, and the small-dick bin Laden thing is an urban legend. All hail Snopes!

A problem excrabated by the high-interest, low inflation policies of the last two decades, policies instituted by the Mulroney Tories and the boys on Bay Street with little regard to their long term effects on the economy. That's a plain old oversimplification. Look at the example of the U.S.A. Federal taxes there have remained relatiovely unchanged for decades (18.4% of GDP in the '50s to 20.5% in the early '90s), yet productivity has declined ever since. The problem lies not with taxes, but with the distribution of taxation. The trend has been to cut taxes for the wealthy and for corporations and shift the tax burden onto mid and low income folks. This policy is simply wrongheaded. Again, look at the U.S.A, which enjoyed its highset period of productivity when the top marginal tax rate was 91.2%. Basically, the problem isn't high taxes, it's that the wrong people are carrying too much of the tax burden. The overblown "brain drain" is offset by the influx of highly skilled immigrants into the country. There are four times as many university graduates entering Canada from the rest of the world as there are university degree holders of all levels leaving Canada for the United States, simply due to the larger number of immigrants Canada has. Hardly a uniquely Canadian trait, though. The health care system's massive problems stem from chronic underfunding. Period. I don't know what you mean by "broken". Care to elaborate? Which makes it all the more important for the country to attract and retain skilled immigrants, as well as to bolster education to ensure a high level of productivity. Wrong. "There are fewer teenage pregnancies and a lower rate of teen pregnancies now than in 1974. The teenage pregnancy rate in Canada was at its highest in 1974 (54 per 1,000) then declined until reaching its lowest point in 1987 (41.1). The rate then rose gradually until it hit 48.1 in 1992 and has been fluctuating since then. The rate in 1995 was 47 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19."- (Statistics Canada and Canadian Council on Social Development) The divorce rate has actually declined, due to lower marriage rates, an increase in the number of legal separations and the increasing prevalence of common-law unions. Yet you still don't want people who actually want to get married marry. Weird. No doubt that's a problem, which is why we need lower interest rates, higher taxes for high income earners, more tax breaks for small-medium businesses and to rejig NAFTA. Reinvestment in public education should be a top priority of government. That means curbing tuition rates at the post-secondary level and increasing funding to public schools. Worked for Ireland. Canada's crime rate has declined steadily over the past 10 years. Vilonet crime is measured differntly in the U.S., so the comparason is meaningless. Really, this list of Canada's woes is mostly baseless proclamations of half-truths and distortions. You should at leats back up your own statements.

Wrong analogy. FastNed's solution would have the doctor trying to remove a bullet from a patient who is uncuffed and swinging a machette put a bullet between the patient's eyes. You miss the point, as usual. You fail to see nothing wrong with compromising every principle that the U.S. was allegedly founded upon in your lust for blood, instead repeating the same cliches ad nauseum. I also find it rather amusing that you cite America's revolutionary past, steadfastly ignoring the fact that the men who fought for America's independence were considered terrorists in their age. The War on Terrorism is a sham and consequently doomed to fail. Terrorism is not an enemy you can target with guns and bombs. Terrorism wil exist as long as there are men who hunger for power or who seek to change their world. Fighting terrorism through brute military force is like punching smoke: futile. All that will be accomplished wil be further hardening of hearts against America as more innocent lives (like the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians) are lost to bolster Bush's reelection hopes. America is the globe's 800 lb gorilla and as such, will ever be a target. The task is to minimize those threats through the time-honoured and effective methods of counter-terrorism: intelligence-gathering, cooperation, law-enforcement and criminal justice. But then, such methods ultimately do little to enhance Halliburton and Lockheed Martin's bottom line, so it's easy to see why they are out of favour with the plutocrats in Washington.

Uh...how do you know?

Just to clarify: to win the war on terror and protect the principles of freedom, democracy etc. etc. etc. it may become necessary to trample said principles in favor of a campaign of mass destruction and death? In other words: you would become that which you hate, destroy what you are in a single-minded quest for vengance? Wow. That's messed up. I sure hope that America's leaders aren't as crazy as you (but I have my doubts).

So you acknowledge that Hussein cynically invoked the name of Islam merely to suit his own needs, then. Hardly a searing indictment of the religion in and of itself. Can't see what this has to do with the topic at hand, but it's always nice when ignorami spout self-incriminating idiocy such as this.

The First Crusade occurred during the 9th century, a thousand or so years before the Ottoman Empire was born. The last Crusade (the seventh) was undertaken by Louis IX of France in 1244. Evolution is a fact. There is some debate over the mechanisms of evolution, but the fundamental truth of evolution is undeniable.

I find it absolutely nauseating when people use the (admitedly horrific) deaths of thousands on 9-11 to justify the murder of thousands more innocents the world over, all in the name of an ill-defined, nebulous and ham-fisted "War on terror". Long before the Twin Towers fell, America was dealing death to innocent women and children in every corner of the globe (example: the Vietnam War is considered one of America's gretest tragedies. Some 50,000 U.S. servicemen and women lost their lives in that conflict: more than 3 million Vietnamese were killed in the same struggle.) And yet, in a display of historical ignorance and cultural myopia typical of American culture, 9-11 is painted as the gravest affront to humanity since the Holocaust. Consider the more than 5,000 civilians who were killed in Afghanistan in the first salvo in the "War on Scary Concept". Or the 10,000+ Iraqi non-combatants who have lost their lives to the Anglo-American aggression there. For all its horror, 9-11 was but a taste of the wholesale slaughter other nations have long become accustomed to, yet to some, it seems American lives are to be valued more than any other. In the wake of 9-11, America was the beneficiary of an outpouring of symapthy and goodwill from around the world. Since then, America has squandered nearly every iota of that understanding in its arrogant, reckless, bloody-minded pursuit of a unidentifiable, unvanquishable foe, the pursuit of which has seen America's leaders trample the same principles of justice, freedom and humanity that it claims to be defending. There are three types of people who spur on America's misadventure: the manipulators, the Cheneys, Wolfowitzes and Perles who hide behind cabinet positions and in corporate boardrooms to whom 9-11 was nothing more than a golden opportunity to assert American power remains unchecked and guarantee economic, military and political dominance of the globe for years to come. Then there are the pragamatists who truly feel the United States, despite its legion flaws, is the only nation capable of taking charge and assuring order and stability. Then there are the pawns, the dupes and thugs who swallow the shallow jingoism and the constant propaganda drumbeat echoing across America, those who wrap themselves in the Stars and Stripes and the concept of their own superiority, who would accept totalitarianism, so long as it came in the trappings of democracy. These are the people who are content to cheer the deaths of foreign peoples while their own fat asses remained ensconced on their Lay-Z-Boys. People who, as we can see, would be willing to wreak unimaginable destruction on the world for the sake of their infantile desire for revenge and their masturbatory zeal for American power. Do I hate America? No. But I am ashamed that a country with so much promise, a country founded on th ehighest principles of western civilization has been hijacked by the forces of greed, fear and ignorance. I fear for America's future and for its children, for the the war it is waging will be a war without end. America's children, and those of the world, will pay the price in blood and tears. they will be caught in a cycle of death and retribution that could tear the world apart. The only hope is that Americans relize that the path they are headed down is not the path to peace but to further bloodshed. I hope the people can regain control of their country and steer it back onto the path of righteousness and good and send the greedy men and their ignorant lackeys packing. As ye reap, so shall ye sow.

Yes, the U.S. only acts out of a sense of alturisism, never because it stands to gain anything from its little adventures around the world. Puh-leeze. The "make a buck" part of the above is telling, perhaps a rare glimpse of honsety peeking through the facade of a kind and gentle America. U.S. foreign intervention has always been, and continues to be, a matter of ensuring U.S. (particularily corporate) interests are protected. As U.S. Marine Corps officer Major General Smedley Butler said all the way back in 1933: "The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag." Times haven't changed from Butler's days as a "gangster for capitalism". And yet Americans still pat themselves on the back, secure in the mythology that America does right by foreign peoples by bombing the crap out of 'em. The odd time purely humanitarian interventions are undertaken, the U.S. usually needs to be dragged in kicking and screaming. In the meantime, the poor UN, hobbled by the old imperial masters on the Security Council, takes the heat. Simply another wrongheaded attempt to cast the U.S. as the historical victim in global geopolitics. The U.S. long maintained a "first-strike" policy against the Soviets. Many in the top ranks of the U.S. government (including the likes of S.A.C. commander Curtis LeMay in the 1950s) advocated a policy of premption based on the idea that the U.S. could survive a limited nuclear exchange with the USSR. Such a policy thrived for many years in the halls of both the Kremiln and the Pentagon. To this day, the builk of both nations' nuclear arsenal are aimed at one another, ready to launch at a moments notice. With the U.S. seeking to to kickstart a global arms race through aggressive development of new "improved" tac nukes and the "missle sheild" as well as a foreign policy centred upon "preepmtive" aggressive, you'll excuse me if protestations of American purity ring hollow.

U.S. "conservatives" *heart* defecits.

But enough about the Republican party.... Yes, because those backwards, dusky people must be shown the light of the Golden Arches! it is time to again pick up the White Man's Burden and take it to all the corners of the globe where Christianity (and consumer capitalism) will show the benighted hordes the error of their ways.

I just HAD to say something about this. The U.S. has... ...an education system wherein a blacks and Hispanics are denied education opportunities as a result of chronic underfunding of public schools... ... a criminal "justice" system that disproportionatly targets blacks and Latinos... ...chronic unemployment in black communities and a ever-growing economic gap between black and white. ...a deep, abiding cultural strain of racial inequality and intolerance. And you wonder why blacks and latinos have low test scores. Jesus. Think about it: it took 100 year after slavery for blacks to get the same rights across the U.S.A as whites. It's been 40 years since the Civil Rights movement: does anyone honestly believe that the attitudes and prejudices of yesteryear no longer exist? Does anyone actually think blacks and hispanics have access to the same opportunities as white folk? AA is certainly not perfect, but when you have a culture ingrained with the principle of white privilege, the status quo is not acceptable.

I think it has something to do with the notion of "personal responsibility" that so-called conservatives liek to crow about. In this case, the U.S. should lead the way and clean up their own stinking mess. Actually, the better solution would be to remove control of the CPA from the U.S., turn it over to a duly delegated UN representatives and withdraw the bulk of U.S. troops (who are overdue for a rotation back to the world anyway), send in a multinational peacekeeping force to oversee the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure, the restoration of services and, hopefully, acheive some measure of stability. Then the west should get the hell out of Iraq and the business of imperialism altogether.

As an angry whit eatheist I take offense at the implication that I don't wish to be held accountable by my actions. I do, just not by someone else's invisible super hero in the sky. But in the instance of the Ten Commandments controversy, the courthouse is an institution of the State and therefore an innapopriate location for a State official to publicly express his religious beliefs. Period. I am "home". Where shall I go?

I'll keep it short and simple so you can understand. Alberta is teh richest province becaus eof oil and gas revenues. Basically, anyone with access to that kind of revenue would be able to run the province as well (and probably better) than Klein. It has precious little to do with fiscal savvy and plenty more to do with sitting on billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue. Indeed, the real question is why aren't we doing better out here?

Nope. It's called "considering the source." If someone posted something by, say, Ernst Zundel, would you react the same way. Jackson's a kook. End of story. No that was replying to your "see no evil" assertion that the U.S. isn't in a recession. It is. Bush's economic policies (such as runaway defecit spending) indict themselves. 1. No your point was that "liberals" make policy soley based on ideology. I say it works both ways and that, in fact, that conservatives continmue to advocate solutions that have categorically failed to acheive the desired results demonstrates an slavish devotion to ideology bordering on religious dogma. 2. Bush's tax cuts were primarily for the rich. Actualy, most tax cuts do benefit the wealthy. 3. yes I have something against a class of people that has (largey through none of there own doing) amassed an obscene amount of wealth, yet continuously fight tooth and claw any attempt to make them pay their fair share. Name me one media mogul with "left wing" politics. Ah, the Great Myth of the Reasonable Right rears it's ugly head. If you buy that, I've got siome primo swampland in Florida with your name on it... Believe me, I've argued with conservatives before. Most wouldn't know facts reason or logic if it fell on 'em.

More drivel from Jackson, who is completely out to lunch as well as being a paranoid, borderline insane drunk (so speaketh my sources in the CalSun newsroom). This is the same looney who claimed the anti-Iraq war protests were funded by saddam hussein (I took part in every local march and rally and still haven't got my cheque from Saddam). Uh huh. The very short recession you talked about, izzat the same one that started in 1981 under Ronald Reagan (let me guess: that was Carter's fault)? "In testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the “supply shock” consequences of the terror attack would reduce the growth rate of gross domestic product in the third and fourth quarters and “increase significantly the likelihood that the economy is in recession.”" - October 2001 Tax cuts for the wealthy, ":faith-based" education funding, a bloated military budget, the gutting of social and environmental programs, massive corporate welfare, a repressive criminal justice system: yeah, Republicans never make policy based on purely idealogical grounds. A syphilitic chimp could run Alberta better than Klein's crew of miscreeants. It's called "oil". Anyone who thinks Rupert Murdoch, Izzy Asper, Tubby Black et all are lefties is barking (mad) up the wrong tree. You guys really haven't the foggiest idea, do you?

And yet we're still the sixth largest spender among NATO countries and the 16th highest world wide. So much for the myth of Canadian inferiority. We need smarter spending, not more. We need a vision of what we want the CF to be. What we don't need is a bloated military industrial complex like the States',. the only purpose of which is to line the pockets of fat cat investors and their political cronies.

Hugo, thanks for the even-handed, educated post. It's a nice contrast to some of the narrow-minded idiocy on display elsewhere on this thread.

I'm speechless here. What arrogance! What ignorance! Here we see the bin Laden's bedfellow, fueling the fires of hate that the radical Islamists use to push their twisted version of the Prophet's words.

Bullshit. the Palestinian people want peace. While there's no denying the presence of certain factions among palestinian society who would like nothing more than teh utter destruction of the Jewish state, your average Palestinian would like nothing more than to live in peace, free from repression and the demonization that folks like you use to continue this horrible conflict. In fact, i'm willing to bet your average Palestinian is no different from the average Israeli: both parties are held hostage by corrupt regimes interested soley in continuingh the mindless bloodshed for their own ideological or personal gratification. As for religion, this conflict has sweet fuck all to do with religion and everything to do with power. Like pretty much every othe r"religious" conflict in human history.

Moore is an officer and representative of the government. He cannot only represent his personal views or defend the rights of those whose religious views are like his own; instead, he must uphold the laws created by the people and apply them to all citizens equally. How can someone who has declared that "God's law" supersedes the laws of the land be expected to fulfil this most basic obligation? Bullshit. the monument was Moore's way of saying "Fuck you" to the secular establishment (of which, like it or not, he is a part of). Even the most cursory look at the man's patterns indicate he's not interested in simply expressing his personal faith; he's formenting religious conflict to further his political ambitions. Does this sound like a fellow who just wants to pray in peace? Does this jibe with the Declaration of Independence, which states"governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"? Nope. How 'bout this from that good ol' God fearing Southern man Moore: Which stands in stark contrast to the 1797 U.S. declaration in the Treaty of Tripoli that says, in no uncertain terms that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." So on the one hand we have legal precedent and a 226 year-old tradition of secular governance. On the other, a poltically motivated Christian Reconstructionist with an eye on a Senate seat. I'll stick with the Founding fathers over a bunch of raving idoloters, thanks.

The Ten Commandments monument issue has nothing to with freedom of religion and everything to do with the political ambitions of the judge in question. Moore knows his constituents and knows how to play the religion card (muchas George Wallace before him played the race card against desegregation) to further his career. It's obvious that he set the monument up as a taunt and the ACLU (quite rightly) took the bait. Now Moore is a hero to the dupes of the religious right down in Talibama. There will be a fight. And Moore will lose. There is no place in the public body for expressions of personal religious faith. Period. End of story.

Of course for one to accept the reult of the 2000 election, one would also have to accept teh pre-election purging of voter's rolls by Katherine Harris which resulted in more than 90,000 people (predominately African American) being stripped of their right to vote. Another 8,000 people were scrubbed from the rolls for having committed a misdemeanor. However, only convicted felons are suppossed to be scrubbed. Whoops. Then then there was the votes that were thrown away, the people who were blocked from voting, the partisan insiders working th eactual election, Jeb's promise to his brother that he would deliver Florida, the Supreme Court's unprecedented (and unfollowable) partisan decision... The election was a fraud from the word go. Read greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" for more. Iraq poised no threat to "national security". As for Afghanistan, why was there no action taken against Saudi Arabia, which has been revealed to be one of the chief financiers of the whole 9-11 operation, hmmmm? Wouldn't have nuthin' to do with the Bush connection to the Hous eof Saud, would it? Prove me wrong, sunshine. Prove me wrong.