Wayward Son

The average high school class size under Mike Harris was 22. It is explicitly outlined in Harris' Bill 160 legislation. As they should have. You spend your next post whining and moaning about the class sizes you had endure when in high school. Current class sizes for most students are the same as they were for most students under Harris. Ford wanted to make them much larger than anything Ontario had ever seen. Most class sizes for academic students would have been pushed into the 40s. Not the occasional one. Most. People think that the "average class size" actually represents the average class size (as actually is the case for most countries and provinces), but Harris made sure that our "average class size" is much smaller and Conservatives have used that lie to be outraged about teachers ever since.

Nothing about Bin Laden, eh? I suppose you think 9/11 was an inside job, anyways...

Still using a non-existent agreement between the US and USSR as an excuse for Putin's aggression and interference with another sovereign country? Pathetic. Even more pathetic is that you think it is fine for two superpowers to unilaterally make deals about what smaller sovereign countries are allowed to do with their own foreign policy. I do not need to rethink my position on the Iraq wars for my own conscience. I opposed and continue to have opposed the second. However, I did not side with a murderous dictator who was the complete scum of the earth like you did and do. I opposed it because I felt that the US was not intent on removing Saddam for supportable reasons. If I had felt that the US' motives were primarily to remove a psychopathic dictator (whose two sons were just as bad) and to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq who had been the victims of this monster I would have whole-heartedly supported it. Just I would support the west removing the psychopaths from control of North Korea. That you supported a murderous dictator, who tortured, raped and killed the family members of dissenters, gassed his own people, and led of regime of terror for decades only shows how completely morally bankrupt you are. It is disgusting.

Well I hope that GH and others who have claimed that there are no Putin apologists on here will recognize that they were wrong. Because Putin had "no choice." Why? Because the Ukraine, being it's own sovereign country, felt that it should therefore have it's own foreign policy, and not the ones dictated to it by it's neighboring bully, who had controlled, bullied, starved and killed the Ukrainian people for decades. It is unfortunate that Georgia and Ukraine were not accepted into NATO in 2008 (when they both desperately wanted in, but NATO said no - something that puts a complete wrench into your claim that this is about US/NATO encrochment on Russia, when in reality it about sovereign countries not wanted Russia to encroach on them). At that time in April of 2008 Putin said that Russia would annex Crimea and Eastern Ukraine if they joined NATO. Of course Ukraine has not joined NATO, but Russia went ahead anyways, along with annexing large parts of Georgia in 2008. I opposed the war in Iraq, but after participating in a couple protests I stopped, as I found that while most people there opposed to war in general, a whole lot of others were simply on the other side. That is where you are, on the side of the thugs, tyrants, dictators and authoritarians.

This Scientific American article from last year explains why the CIA program was a terrible idea that will have consequences that may last for decades.

Getting better happens without treatment on occasion. The chances are obviously much better with medical treatment then without. Also she has had some treatment (some chemo, and undoubtedly other treatments). Several articles have said that without continued treatment they were worried about remission occurring. For the type of cancer she has (ALL), treatment almost always includes chemo given in many cycles over a couple years, that would mean to me that she has completed at least one cycle and the cancer is no longer detected, but follow up chemo reduces the chances of the cancer (which is really good at hiding) returning. If that is the case and she doesn't relapse (which does happens without follow up chemo, but is more rare then with treatment) there is no reason at all to suspect that it had anything at all to do with this Ongwehowe Onongwatri:yo traditional "medicine." She just will be one of the lucky ones. I am fine with this treatment being stopped, IF the proper authorities feel that the child is informed, and understands the risk she is taking. I assume that they did their job properly, but I have my doubts when I read things like this coming from the mother: 1) She doesn't. The mother is either completely uninformed, has been influenced by a crackpot, or she is in denial and says those things to make herself feel better about a decision which is riskier. 2) Chemo does have side-effects, and those side effects can be brutal, but in general the alternative medicines that have no side effects, also have no effects. If the mother would have said something like: "We know she is taking a risk, but because the side effects were so bad she has decided to stop the chemo, and we are supporting her in that decision along with looking at alternatives. We understand that the efficacy is unknown for those alternatives." I would have at least felt that they were informed as the child was being put at risk. This is biggest problem with the whole alternative medicine scam industry when it comes to cancer. Most patients start by getting the conventional treatment. If that is effective they generally are encouraged to accept something like follow up chemo to reduce their chances of relapse. Many don't complete this chemo, because they don't like the side effects (which is totally understandable). However, they start to feel guilty about stopping a medical treatment so they find some crackpot alternative medicine which does nothing, but the patient often now thinks this nonsense is what "cured" their cancer. I have witnessed it among friends. I have witnessed it from health care providers who have to know how full of crap they are, but there is a strong psychological factor involved.

Got it. So when the US says negative things about a leader like say Kim Jong-un, it actually means that he is doing what is best for his country. I wonder how the US would be able to express themselves when a leader is actually not doing what is best for their own country's interests (I know that would have to be a hypothetical situation for the likes of BG, who believes that all leaders are doing what is best for their people....even say the previous leader of the Ukraine who spent his term stealing all the wealth out of the country for himself, his son, and his close associates)? The US can't say bad things, because that would indicate that the leader in question was doing what is best for the country's interests...so I guess they would have to say good things. I would be embarrassed to have made such a ridiculous remark, but it is par for the course for the groupies of authoritarian leaders (and the demonizing of the west coming out of Russia has been orders of magnitude beyond the rather tame treatment of the west towards Putin - but that is fine, especially among those in the west who cheer authoritarian regimes, and chastise the west...something they enjoy the freedom to do, unlike in places like Russia).

I post for my own enjoyment. Over the last 15 years Putin's popularity has always stayed above 60%. His popularity has gone above 80% often (In 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 etc). Generally those upticks coincide with the government's frequent and increasingly harsh crackdowns on the media. At present another severe crackdown started just days before the Olympics (when the Kremlin attacked the last independent TV station in Russia - Dozhd - followed by the attack on prominent independent news source Lenta.ru where the Kremlin forced out the editor, replaced him with a Kremlin stooge and the entire staff quit. In mid-March the Kremlin blocked internet access to most major non-government propaganda news sources. In a couple months non-government propaganda news sources went from slim to almost none. But, yeah I am sure that Putin's popularity has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the general population independently weighing the pros and cons of rekindled Russian nationalism. I am not writing it off. I simply understand that the rekindled nationalism is due to a tightly controlled media common in authoritarian regimes. He is not doing what is best for Russia; he is doing what is best to keep his regime in control. There is a huge difference, but you fail to see it.

Hudak's goal is to win the race to the bottom. Remaking the province into a non-union, low wage, corporate paradise. Saving money is a secondary consideration.

I have no illusions about your pretending to have a balanced position. The reality is that you look at anything that is printed about the one side with much more skepticism than you do anything printed about the other side. I do as well, but at least I have no problem admitting to it. As for your comment that newspapers like the Washington Post have printed Putin's popularity numbers, well duh, I was not claiming that polls were not showing those numbers. I was claiming that popularity numbers in a state where the government controls the media are completely meaningless. Western papers have long published the popularity numbers of Castro, Saddam, Stalin, North Korean dictators. But most people recognize what influences those statistics, and the power of state propaganda. Finally, I have no interest in changing your mind. Countless studies have shown that attempting to do so is in almost all cases a complete waste of time.

Being an authoritarian with tight control over the media is what is mightier...and also makes any claims of approval ratings worthless. But, I don't expect anything will damper your love for the thug.

Some of us have managed the amazing feat of opposing the US going into Iraq AND opposing what Russia is doing to destabilize the Ukraine. Others opposed the US going into Iraq but are coming up with all kinds of excuses for Russia now (Ders Russians in there so why shouldn't Russia go in? NATO made a (completely undocumented) promise to the USSR not expand eastward...so that means that no what Russia does, the west is more at fault).

Thanks for the link.....

This is really something I have seen played out a couple times since 9/11 for people on the left (I say that as someone who generally finds myself on the far left for almost all issues). After 9/11 Hitchens stated roughly the following about some of the left's reaction: "It’s the observation that when people are learning a new language, they habitually translate it back into the one they already know." (That was a quote from Marx) and he used that to argue that a good portion of the left views most things as a battle between the imperial west and their victims. Therefore any group that attacks the imperial western power must be a representative of the oppressed, and its agenda must be aligned with the agenda of the left even when the terrorists hated everything the left had long fought for. Any time many on left oppose totalitarianism, oppose dictators, oppose aggression against weaker nations by other nations (as long as they are not western), some others on the left will accuse them of supporting western imperialism. I knew immediately that when Putin started making noise about the Ukraine some on the left would find a way to come to his defense, despite being an authoritarian thug who would horrify every left-winger if he was a politician in their own country. The shaky claim about the NATO expansion promise is passed around as gospel despite there being little evidence to support such a position ever being agreed to between NATO and the USSR, nothing being in writing at a time when the Soviets were ensuring everything else was in writing, and despite any decision made between two superpowers and forced upon smaller nations being an action that those same people would oppose in any other context (talk about western imperialism). This is no different from the many on the left who leveled similar accusations against leftists like Orwell who opposed Soviet totalitarianism and expansionism. But the left is divided by many issues and I suspect that the right is no different.

I figured my last sentence would make it obvious. (but of course the internet makes these things harder to read)

I agree. It is clearly the people in the community who feel that a police commissioner (who hires, fires, gives raises, and is supposed to treating all members the public the same) should not be saying racist things in public, who are in the wrong here. If there is one thing we know about racist police departments, if you just ignore the problem it will go away.

It would depend on what percentage of the habitability are primary succession, autogenic succession or allogenic succession. Regardless, the belief that this currently uninhabitable land would quickly become in any meaningful way habitable is pretty at odds with the mainstream thinking of scientific experts. As is the belief that these areas would become habitable at a time when the losses would consist of only Tuvulu and not current coastal areas throughout the world.

Well it is over 8 years, so you have to figure in population growth, and he may be figuring in a decrease in the number of people who leave the province to find work, plus perhaps people who are not counted as unemployed because they have given up on finding work. There would also be a number of people who are employed, but only part-time and some of them would likely want a second job. That is not a defense of Hudak's numbers though, which I think are deeply flawed. As I have pointed out more then half of his million jobs are jobs that are predicted to occur as if the status quo remained the same (523,000 jobs based on the average number of the jobs created over the past decade and multiplying that yearly average over eight years). But 300,000 of those jobs over the last eight years were public sector jobs (at least according to Hudak), so they must be subtracted from that total (especially as Hudak includes the changes in public jobs elsewhere in his job plan: a loss of 100,000 in the first 4 years, and a gain for 40,000ish). So he counts public sector job growth twice...and both times at completely different numbers. It appears his numbers have a problem with basic elementary school math, and would fail the standardized testing, which may be why he wants to lay off so many teachers.

Correct.

I said that I am no expert in it, and unlike you who appear to be a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect, I recognize that the actual relevant experts have a diverse set of opinions. You can be certain of one thing though - I would never take your word for anything, as you have shown yourself to be a complete slave to your narrow ideology.

So what? You do realize that there are disparities across the country? Right? That the change in the dollar has affected some regions negatively, and others positively. That manufacturing base vs resource base during the financial downturn has resulted in some areas being more affected than others. The things that affect government revenues are complex. I know of no serious person who would think that a reduction in government spending would lead to zero change in government revenue. All was asking was if your claim that there would have been a $10B surplus was based on say a Picasso painting understanding of economics, a 4-year old drawing stick figures understanding, or somewhere in between. You gave your answer. I don't claim to have a strong understanding of economics myself, but at least I understand that it is a complex system.

Thanks. I was just wondering if you had a completely simplistic view of the economy, such as the belief that current government revenues would be same today regardless of changes in government expenditures over the past several years. My question has been answered.

Based on what?

Hudak is talking about cutting expenses by 6%. The Harper government still has higher expenses now (280.6B) then they did at the time of the worst deficit (274.2B in 2009-10) and they there projected expenses in 2015-16 is 286.9B. Now obviously considering inflation the government has been showing spending restraint, but the vast majority of balancing the books was due to Revenues increasing. I don't have a problem with government restraint. I don't have a problem with cuts, even deep ones, when the global economy is strong. But most economists seem to rate significant cuts when the global economy is not strong as questionable at best.

It is not political opponents. It is members of Russia's military being paid to enter and destabilize another country. They should not be there, and news sources like RT have consistently denied that they are there, so what are you worried about? Or do you actually know that your favorite news source has been lying all along? Russia has been using their money, propaganda, and military to destabilize Ukraine...but now that someone from the country that is being attacked is using money to try to stop the destabilization you are now suddenly worried about that influence on democracy. As for the weapons, money for weapons is a sensible policy that has been used in lots of places, like the US and Australia. I support it.