KeyStone

The US voters base their decision on multi-million dollar fearmongering marketing campaigns that stake out certain positions, making it nearly impossible for moderates to take a moderate position. Bernie Sanders is a courageous individual who is not afraid to speak the truth. He recognizes that socialist is not necessarily a bad thing. He is not afraid to speak in favour of high taxes when they are needed, and is more than willing to speak up and oppse any politician, be they Republican or Democrat. The fact that he is perpetually re-elected in Vermont, speaks well of the state. If it weren't for the oil, I'd propose a swap of Alberta for Vermont.

Rex is right about one thing and one thing only. Not every person in the world is seeking colder climates. Dismissing climate change because there is somewhere colder than usual in the world, makes about as much sense as laying off your police force, because we didn't have any murders over the weekend. It's asinine as is this entire column by Rex Murphy whose acerbic attempts at humour seems to have found a home at the National Post, where people prefer trite remarks and one-liners to actual logic and analysis. That being said, there are a great many reasons to oppose Kyoto, but none of them have to do with the weather in Cancun or England.

Like what Bob? Taxes are too high, and Israel isn't encroaching on the settlements fast enough for your liking?

So, look. I hear talk about land claims all the time. I don't really know that much about it. It seems that the First Nations and Inuit are constantly upset by the lack of progress on it, while most Canadians don't really pay much attention to it. As a non-status Canadian, my general sense is that the cumulative amount of compensation sought after by the various bands is ginormous, to the extent that they can never be truly satisfied. Now, one thing I don't understand about land claims: Are they contracts that were agreed to but never honoured? Or, do First Nations simply base their demands on past residence of the land? Of, is there a gray area, where there are some contracts, but the interpretation is somewhat unclear?

If it weren't for that pesky thing, we could just lock up the criminals for being Muslim-looking. Darn it.

The point here is that the First Nations demand the right to self-governance. When they get it, their leaders get wildly disproportionate compensation to the rest of the First nations. Then, they cry foul to the government of Canada, that their people are living in poverty. The people on the reserves need to take some responsibility. You can not have a band chief making 300,000 tax free dollars coming hat in hand to proclaim that his reserve is not getting enough money. They have achieved self-government, and it is a dismal failure. What is the government suppposed to do now? Just throw more money at the problem?

The two separate rape allegations were filed on the same day - despite both alleged rapes having taken place months earlier. Coincidentally, the allegations surfaced right around the time of the last disclosure. The Swedish police investigated the complaints and dismissed them within days, finding them completely baseless. The case was just re-opened and red-carded at Interpol with this latest release of documents.

China already has a permanent seat. The problem with including India is that Pakistan would not like it, and they are a crucial ally on the war on terror. The EU having two seats, shares the power throughout the EU, rather than giving it only to UK and France.

Tim, I think much of the confusion between us comes from your understanding of the word 'killed'. Perhaps English is not your first language. Saddam Hussein was killed by the Iraqi government. This does not mean that the Iraqi government was in the wrong. It is simply an action that happened. There is no judgment attached to it. You seem to equate killing with murdering which is not the same word at all. In your police example, it does have a bias, but that is because you use the word murder, and not killed. I stated a simple fact. I did not think all facts need to include the backstory and context. If that is required, I'll need three hours to write a forum post. Ok, Tim, you just said I was engaged in hate-mongering. That's much better.

Tim, you're a perfect example of the problem. I have stated that Israel has killed hundreds of children which is a fact. From that statement, you have inferred that I am anti-semite. No one says that the Japanese killed all those civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they did not surrender. We all agree that the US killed those civilians. Now, you can certainly argue that Israel had no choice in the matter, and that is a fair argument. But telling me that I am an anti-semite because I have stated that Israel has killed children is intellectually dishonest and cowardly. You are a perfect example of the apologist that smears everyone as an anti-semite for finding fault with Israel. Sure, it is always tempered with some vague suggestion that it is ok to criticize Israel, but it appears that the list of items in which criticism of Israel is acceptable is fairly limited. What can we criticize? Taxes are too high, and traffic takes too long? Furthermore, I never said it was Israeli policy to kill children as you seem to have inferred. I am simply explaining why people pick on Israel more than other nations. Israel has killed children.

It is an argument that resonates well, and it may seem like anti-semitism, but there are a number of other explanations. You are absolutely right that Israel treats its own citizens better than any of its neighbours. Why then do we not have protests against Syria? 1) There is a difference between how a nation treats its own citizens, and how it treats others. Africa is full of abuse stories, but the crimes are perpetrated within their own borders, and thus the international community believes that is an internal matter. Do you know of any other nations that have killed hundreds of children outside of its own borders in the past ten years? 2) While many injustices are committed around the world, the killing of children by Israel is the only one that is vigorously defended by its apologists. If someone posts about how terrible it is that the Hutu are killing the Tutsi, I won't get ten people popping up telling me that the Hutu need to massacre the Tutsi. There is no debate. There is no difference of opinion. 3) The media (in Canada) also defends Israel on a regular basis. The National Post can not go two consecutive days without an article talking about how evil the Arab/Persians are, talking about the prevalence of anti-semitism, or defending Israel. When we are bombarded with such one-sided opinions on such a regular basis, we can not help but rise up in protest. 4) Israel demands a place at the table of respect, alongside countries such as Canada, Sweden, and Australia. Syria, Iran, Mozambique have no such illusions. None of them are proper global citizens. Israel wants to compare itself to Syria when it comes to moral responsibility, but wants to compare itself to Canada when its time to set up trade deals and wield influence. If you want a seat at the table of respect, then you must hold yourself to the standard of countries such as Canada, not those of Iran. 5) Our politicians can not shut up about Israel. They visit Israel. They defend every action Israel does. They mention every Jewish holiday in existence (but don't mention Christmas), and visit synagogues, and Jewish community centers at every opportunity. They pander more to the Jewish community than the Christian community despite the relatively small numbers of Jewish people in Canada. The disproportionate amount of influence that Jewish Canadians have over our foreign policy is appalling.

His maximum sentence will be until the next Republican President leaves office. Don't be surprised if Obama gives him a pardon. For all their histrionics, they're all playing for the same team.

I think you're missing the point Bob. Anti-semitism simply refers to those people that hate Jews, simply because they are Jews. If they hate people who happen to be Jewish because of encroaching settlements, murdering children under the guise of defense, or just actively spreading lies against Muslims, then they are not anti-semitic. The key difference is to oppose those responsible for the perceived wrong actions, and the Israeli government itself, as opposed to worldwide Jews. An extension of that would be holocaust denial, which while not anti-semitism in itself, but the belief of which coincides with anti-semitism in 99.9% of cases. You, however, believe that simply opposing expanded settlements in the occupied territories, addressing the perceived wrongs of Israel in disproportionate efforts to other worldwide injustices, or daring to call the inconsistencies between how Jews and Arabs are treated in Israel as apartheid, are all anti-semitism.

While eloquently written Rue, you are missing one obvious truth here. Now, you suggest that one's level of Judaism is completely irrelevant to the equation, and it should be, but it is not. The reason that Chomsky has been elevated as a champion among the left in standing up to Israel, is partly because he is Jewish. There are certain Israeli apologists, who believe that the vast majority of criticism leveled at Israel is the result of hatred of Jews, and nothing else. The charge of Jew-hating is not as easy to direct towards Chomsky and other Jews, simply because they are Jewish. Of course, as Bob will tell you, by being critical of Israel, they can not possible be 'real Jews'.

But, I've given you statistics about the wide-sweeping changes in Venezuela to support my belief that Chavez is making things better for the poor. What have you provided? A prediction for GDP growth in 2010 and 2011? You seem to put more stock in the negative predictions than in the last five years of actual results. You don't seem to acknowledge the many positive statistics about Venezuela whatsoever. Sure, Alberta has a strong, robust economy that is swimming in oil. But even they had a downturn in 2009. My point is that even strong economies have occasional downturns and it is not indicative of widespread economic failure. Firstly, they are going through a transformation. Change always has some setbacks along the way. Secondly, the Western economists always underestimate Venezuela. Talk to me when the numbers are in. They've been crying about economic collapse for the last ten years. Well, play semantics if you like. The fact is very few countries that do not offer universal education are able to prosper. Name some successful countries that leave education to free market forces. If you could take the blinders off for a second, you would realize that Chavez is doing a good thing by supplying universal education. You obviously have never tried investing in China. Do you think you can just buy local businesses there? Do you think you can just open up shop in Beijing? The government has incredibly tight controls over foreign ownership and investment. China is hardly the shining example of free market success that you would like to believe. Great. Well, gosh. Who cares if their deficit was 14% of their GDP, and their banks are failing. Let's lower taxes some more. That will help pay the bills. Perhaps Europe is concerned about businesses locating to Ireland because of low taxes. Because if everyone adopts the same tax structure you have a zero-sum game, where all nations are in financial trouble because they can not balance their budgets due to lower tax revenues. As for Brazil, they snapped out of the recession sooner than most countries, but each economy is different, and responds in its own way to global influences. Venezuela grew much more quickly than Brazil prior to 2009. Now, Brazil will do better than Venezuela for the next couple of years. Generally, Venezuela's economy is largely tied to oil, so as the global economy improves, there is more demand for oil, and Venezuela's economy will outperform Brazil again. It's just like owning a store. You can sell 200 units of milk a day at $1.00 Or you can sell 180 unites a day at $1.25 You're simply exaggerating the elasticity. Venezuela is not as productive as it was pre-strike and yes, more foreign companies would help increase production. But perhaps the cost is simply not worth it. Everyone of those companies got their money back, and plenty of return on their investment. They are merely pouting that they only got 500% on their investment instead of 5000%. The only robbery that took place happened before Chavez got into power. Yes, but you ignore other facts. You ignore positive years of growth, increased enrollment, increased literacy, decreased infant mortality, decreased maternal mortality. Instead, you just say Venezuela is poor because of Chavez with nothing to back that up other than predictions for future calamity. Chavez has been in power for many years. Therefore, if his policies are so inept, Venezuela should be a shithole now. Where are your statistics to show how awful Venezuela has become under Chavez? Where are your arguments? They have an electricity problem? Is that all you got? Chavez's greatest failure is in providing an unpredictable investment climate, and he could have done a much better job of that. However, he has done amazing things for the people of Venezuela. And for some little arrogant shit to come in and try to tear down all that he has done for the poor, with no evidence to back it up other than some economic forecasts, which don't speak to literacy, poverty, health, education or general well-being is abhorrent.

Not sure where the Africans are in this example, but anyways... So, you agree that if a brown man from Trinidad calls a white man from England a limey, he is a racist?

I have to say that I'm very surprised that Cuba voted that way. Generally, they have been one of the more enlightened countries in the world in many ways. Perhaps Raoul is more different than Fidel than we imagined.

Those numbers seem exaggerated, but maybe it's accurate. It might be a rough estimate, where costs are not properly allocated. However, I can tell you about Toronto's streets to homes initiatives. Basically, anti-poverty advocates and the business community both agreed that we should find homes for the homeless. In many cases it was succesful, but not all. Some people did not want to leave the street. Either because of mistrust, mental health, or other reasons, they did not want a home. They can not be forced to move, unless there is a threat to their health - so some remained on the street. Others were placed in permanent homes but simply did not have the life skills to maintain their residence to a minimum standard of decency. It seems to me that the solution is to offer college-style dorms that are nearly indestructible to anyone in need of a residence, complete with care attendants to ensure a certain level of cleanliness and to teach life skills.

Here is another thing I don't understand. You quote: Yet, you also state that if I ask someone where they are from based on their accent, that I am racist. How exactly does asking someone where they are from, imply that I believe that I am superior over others? Please explain. You seem to be the foremost authority on racism, and I am having trouble keeping up with the lesson. For instance, take the following conversation as an example: Keystone: Hey, where are you from? (to a cab driver with a thick accent). Cab driver: None of your business, you stupid wop. In that example, Keystone would be the racist, correct?

So to be consistent with your rules for defining racism. A brown man from Trinidad calling a brown man from Pakistan a towelhead is not being racist. A white man from Canada calling a brown man from Pakistan is racist. A white man from Canada calling an white man from England a limey is not being racist. A brown man from Trinidad calling a white man from England a limey is being racist. Is that accurate or have I misunderstood something about your definition of racism?

So, if I were to use the term 'Towelhead', that wouldn't be racist, because it applies to a specific subset of brown-skinned people, as opposed to the entire race? Is that correct? Because towelhead is not a race?

Better than Kenney

You're just going to keep flogging that dead horse, aren't you? Alberta, also floating on oil, had negative GDP growth in 2009. Do we need to push the panic button there, and suggest the sky is falling as well? Or, is that different? Lots of countries have temporary setbacks, a combination of negatives, during a recession can cause it. A single year of low negative growth, does not mean that the economy is collapsing, as you seem to want to believe so desperately. Capital that is aimed slowly at extracting the natural resources of the country, in exchange for a pittance of the real value of those goods, and a few token jobs is not needed. Much better to take the resources yourself and re-invest the profits into the country. There are some obvious difference there. Firstly, most of the countries you listed also provide free education to their citizens, so that they can compete for the real jobs. Not sure why you have China included as a bastion of free trade and democracy. Oh, and Ireland is just doing swimmingly now isn't it? All that money that they took in (thanks to lower taxes) and surprise, surprise - their economy is in such a mess, with such huge deficits that the EU has to step in and save them. I guess that is what happens when your economy is built on speculation - it crumbles like a house of cards, at the first sign of panic. Sure, Brazil is doing well. But it is not because of opening the doors to free trade, free markets and unregulated capitalism. Nor is it because they allow foreigners to come in and take away all of their resources for nothing. Lula is generally considered socialist when not compared to Chavez. In fact, he was the one who stood up to the US and the EU and demanded better deals for Latin America if they wanted free trade. The oil companies don't give Chavez anything. They buy the rights for the minerals and oil. And Venezuela can take the oil out of the ground by themselves or get other partners. They don't need to be held hostage to Western oil companies demanding onerous percentages of the profit. In fact, after Chavez changed the deal to spend more on the people of Venezuela, most of the oil companies stuck around. They aren't making as much profit, but they are still doing quite well. You're hilarious. Year after year of ridiculous growth, and now the first year of negative growth since the strike/coup, and you're ready to declare Venezuela a huge economic failure, and it isn't even official yet. You can't have the level of growth that Venezuela had, without a downturn eventually. The infrastructure can't keep up. Bottom line: You don't have any facts. All you have is the fact that Venezuela will have negative growth for the first time in a long while, even though, including 2010, they are still well above Canada and the US when it comes to GDP growth. You're desperately cherry picking numbers to arrive at the flawed conclusion that Venezuela is collapsing as the result of Chavez policies - while ignoring the popularity he gets from the people who actually live in Venezuela, and the incredible social benefits he has brough to the country. The way you talk, would suggest that Chavez just started making changes yeterday, which triggered the negative GDP - but in fact he's been putting these in place the last ten years, with strong economic growth until this year. Yet, you ignore all the positives and just focus on the few negatives that exist. It would be like if the Maple Leafs beat the Canadians 10-1, and all you could do was suggest that the goal that was let in was indicative that the Leafs were a terrible team and in huge trouble. You conveniently ignore so many facts, that I have no choice but to conclude that you are intellectually dishonest and not worth any more time.

Yes, this is exactly how current political advisors word polls. I can tell that this highly scientific poll was the result of the collaborative efforts of several PhD's, I like the option where someone takes most of my money and gives it to someone else. That sounds really appealing and totally unbiased. I have absolutely no idea which of the three systems presented is favoured by the author(s) of the poll.

It's a good point. I hadn't considered that. But it seems to me that we subsidize a lot more than just the food industry. We also subsidize logging, mining etc, anything seasonal. I don't have a problem with a top-up for people struggling to get by, or giving someone cash when they are unexpectedly laid off (that is what unemployment insurance is supposed to be for), but I do have a problem with workers who get a decent wage already, getting extra money. Why is it that they are entitled to make more than the guy working at a gas station, while they are laid off?