(V):

The kings of Bahrain figured that the protesters were dangerous to his regime, so he ordered the army to send in anti-riot police. They shot at the demonstrators, threw tear gas at them and detained over 250, 44 of which have disappeared. Then Joe Biden comes out and says that talks is the way to go. What about providing logistical support to those protesters? Are we leaving them to the wolves, like you said we did in Iraq?

> Unfortunately we have 'Iraq', North Korea amongst others which have drained Trillions of $ and tied up a fair proportion of troops.

So we can spare money and planes for Libya. We can send weapons to the rebels (in case anyone noticed, those rebels are armed to the teeth. I wonder who supplied the weapons.)

I think we are just making excuses for our double standard. Bahrain is OK because they run big banking consortiums and sell cheap oil. Libya is not, because Gaddafi nationalized the oil industry. I don't buy the pro-democracy ideology. I suppose it is acceptable to let Bahrain oppress its population because they are mostly Shia muslims. Libya is a different story. We do oil deals with Gaddafi when it is politically and economically convenient, and when it is convenient we bomb him too. Maybe I am the only who sees oil as the main motivation in all of this. If Libya had no oil, would any of this be happening? Would any of our governments care?

(V):

To be replaced by whom? An oil company executive like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan? Or by a bank embezzler like Ahmad Chalabi in Iraq? What guarantee is there that he will not be replaced by a corrupt puppet or another dictator?

Like I said before, I don't see our western power doing ANYTHING to change Saudi Arabia. According to the opposition inBahrain 250 have been detained and 44 are missing following the protests there:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110328/wl_nm/us_bahrain_arrests_1

"Earlier this month, Bahrain's Sunni rulers, the al-Khalifa family, imposed martial law and called in troops from fellow Sunni-ruled Gulf neighbors, including top oil exporter Saudi Arabia, to quell weeks of unrest during pro-democracy protest led by mostly Shi'ite demonstrators."

Will they bomb that country too? I doubt it because they sell cheap oil the way our western empires want. That is the only difference. It is all about oil. Anything else is nothing but empty ideological excuses. Democracy counts only when it gives western monopolies a business advantage.

Joe Biden comes and urges the Bahrain monarchy to hold talks with the opposition.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110327/pl_afp/bahrainpoliticsunrestus_20110327165457

So the world's hypocrites say "lets hold talks in Bahrain, and let's bomb Lybia". Nice double standard.

The Col:

> I'll bet Gadhafi is shak'n now

How heroic of our Canadian military to be lackeys for Nato. I am sure they really care about civilians, specially when Qatar just announced that they are ready to start shipping oil from East Lybia. I am really, really sure western oil companies will make no money once Gaddafi leaves power. And I am sure that all the oil money will really go to help poor Lybians, rather than fatten the pockets of oil company executives. Well, it is western style democracy, which means do whatever makes the monopolies rich.

Pedro Martínez:

> The name of the country is “Libya”. :)

Lybia, Libya. I should take spelling lessons!

Artful Dodger:

> no matter that man's health, he should never have been released. He should have died in prison.

I am not going to defend Megrahi. However, people whould take in account several things. His trail and conviction happened just prior to and as the 9-11 terrorist attack occurred.

"Court proceedings started on 3 May 2000. The crucial witness against Megrahi for the prosecution was Tony Gauci, a Maltese storekeeper, who testified that he had sold Megrahi the clothing later found in the remains of the suitcase bomb. At the trial, Tony Gauci appeared uncertain about the exact date he sold the clothes in question, and was not entirely sure that it was Megrahi to whom they were sold. Nonetheless, Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands in March 2002. Five years after the trial, former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, publicly described Gauci as being "an apple short of a picnic" and "not quite the full shilling". ... During the trial, the defence showed that Megrahi's co-defendant, Fhimah, had an air-tight alibi, having been in Sweden at the time of the sabotage."

So the prosecutions star witness caould not even be sure if it was the accused he sold the clothes to, or when. However, the judges had no reasonable doubt at all.

"Megrahi's appeal against his conviction in January 2001 was refused on 14 March 2002 by a panel of five Scottish judges at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. According to a report by the BBC, Dr Hans Köchler, one of the UN observers at the trial, expressed serious doubts about the fairness of the proceedings and spoke of a "spectacular miscarriage of justice"."

So the appeal against the rather dubious evidence presented was refused in early 2002, just after the 9-11 attack. It is no wonder that they were eager to find him guilty.

"Dr Hans Köchler wrote to Foreign Secretary David Miliband on 21 July 2008 saying:
As international observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands I am also concerned about the Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate which has been issued by you in connection with the new Appeal of the convicted Libyan national. Withholding of evidence from the Defence was one of the reasons why the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred Mr. Al-Megrahi's case back to the High Court of Justiciary. The Appeal cannot go ahead if the Government of the United Kingdom, through the PII certificate issued by you, denies the Defence the right (also guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights) to have access to a document which is in the possession of the Prosecution. How can there be equality of arms in such a situation? How can the independence of the judiciary be upheld if the executive power interferes into the appeal process in such a way?"

So the prosecution, following orders from the Foreign Secretary, was withholding evidence from the defense.

"The first official call for the release of Megrahi was made by Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland the Rt Rev Professor Iain Torrance. In July 2003 he petitioned British Prime Minster Tony Blair to consider his release in view of the widespread unease in Scotland concerning the safety of the verdict. The year before, the Kirk’s leading scientist, Dr John Cameron, had written a report criticising the technical evidence presented at the trial in The Hague. Nelson Mandela had also asked for the intervention of the Western Christian churches in what he described as a clear miscarriage of justice."

Poor technical evidence?

"On 14 September 2008, the Arab League Ministerial Council passed a resolution calling for the 'political hostage' Megrahi to be released from prison in Scotland. The resolution demanded that the UK government should hand to Megrahi's lawyers the documents which the SCCRC had identified, adding that Britain's refusal to do so represented a 'miscarriage of justice'. The Arab League also endorsed Libya's right to compensation for the damage done to its economy by UN sanctions which were in force from 1991 until 1999."

So if the Megrahi trial was found a mistrial, they would have to pay compensation not just to Megrahi, but to the entire Lybian economy.

It seems to me that if Megrahi was guilty, the prosecution must have had other evidence not presented in trial. For example, intelligence reports that could compromise some operative high in the Lybian government. Otherwise I don't see how they could have no reasonable doubt about his guilt. I suspect that the ultimate decision to release him was influenced by the poor evidence and the political influence that the UK executive branch of government put on the judiciary branch.

Apparently the man was given 3 months to live, with a chance of living up to 20 years if his cancer went into remission. 2 1/2 years later he is surviving. His doctors in Lybia credit his being near his family as helping to imrpove his health. I suppose there is a big difference between living in a jail cell surrounded by guards, or living a vila in the Mediterranean coast surrounded by his wife and children.

Artful Dodger:

> I tend to agree with you here. I think that one factor for going after Gadhafi is the
> Lockerbie bombing. One has to wonder what the US will do next?

The truth is that Gaddafi was ignored for a long time. After the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 the outgoing Reagan administration and the new Bush administration put a lot of pressure on him.

It was determined that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, a Lybian intelligence and security forces officer, had planned the bombing, although he maintaned his innocence for 8 years. Gaddafi handed over Megrahi and another man to be tried. It was that handing over that thawed the relations between Gaddafi and other European countries. Even the George W. Bush administration took a relatively more moderate stance towards Gaddafi on accounts of his deals with Europeans and and his willingness to trade oil.

Gaddafi did not become an issue until this wave of protests reached the news. Before then people did not really care about him. Now everybody talks about him.

The propaganda machinery is in full force now, from both sides. Western countries would like nothing more than some puppet to rise to power (somebody like Egypt's Mubarak). If our western governments really cared about democracy, they would not support and pour cash on a dictator like Mubarak while condemining one like Gaddafi.

Nobody cares about how the government in Bahrain has dealt with protesters. In that country the government has oppressed the Shia majority for decades. Our western governments have turned a blind eye because Bahrain sells cheap oil, runs banking monopolies, and oppresses a pro-Iranian Shia majority. While Lybia is made a big deal in the news, Bahrain is nothing more than a footnote.

Then there are worse, more oppressive regimes and bloody conflics that get ignored. I wonder if they would declare a no-fly zone over Tibet and Chechnya, and put sanctions on China and Russia. Would they stop buying diamonds and Europium ore from Congo and send US troops to stop the slaughter there? I don't mind our western governments talking of promoting democracy. What I can't stand is double-faced hypocrysy.

Artful Dodger:

> Go...stay...go...Does Obama have a clue what he's doing? Of course, it would help if we had a strategy.

Here is a question: "Does the American government have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of a country?"

Whether Americans like it or not, what is happeneing in Lybia is an internal matter and it is up to Lybians to sort it out. It is up to the Lybian people to fight for their rights and depose their dictator. Why should Obama push for regime change? Why should he interfere at all? Is Lybia a sovereign country? Or is it right for Americans to use their military might to impose their kind of regime (like they did in Iraq)?

If the US is using military might to change regimes in the Middle East, why not force change in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? After all, Pakistan has been the largest source of illegal trafficking of nuclear technology and is by far the country that has supported terrorism the most (even more than Iran or Lybia).

The reality is that the American government does not care whether a government is a democracy or a dictatorship. A government is friendly as long as that government does business for the benefit of American monopolies. If the American government cared about democracy, it would have stopped doing business with dictatorships and totalitarian governments a long time ago. No more Saudi oil, no more cheap Chinese goods, no more cheap minerals from Africa, etc.

It is very hypocritical to single out Lybia, when Pakistan and Saudi Arabia remain the biggest terrorist threats the US faces.

Well, people can debate all they want about the differences between capitalism and communism. In reality they have become so similar that sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference. In the end, both systems boil down to who has the money and the power. For example:

- In Communism wealth and political power are in the hands of a small Communist party elite that makes most of the decisions on how the government should be run.

- In Capitalism wealth and political power are in the hands of a small corporate elite that makes most of the decisions on how the government should be run.

- In Communism the masses are kept from revolting against the system by convincing them that the Communist system exists to ensure that all working class people are equal and endowed with political power through the "soviets" (or some similar system of people's council wich in effect has little political power).

- In Capitalism the masses are kept from revolting against the system by convincing them that the Capitalist system exists to ensure that all working class people are free and endowed of political power through elections (a voting system that gives people minuscule political power).

- Communism uses propaganda to make sure that the masses are convinced that their system is the best and that other systems are flawed and failed.

- Capitalism uses propaganda to make sure that the masses are convinced that their system is the best and that other systems are flawed and failed.

The great proof of how similar both systems are is the ease with which the US became really chummy with China and how both countries integrated their financial and economic systems into a system of cheap production and mass consumption.

Of course, neither capilaists nor communists want to accept that both systems are elitist and that people are free only as long as their actions do not threaten the power of the ruling elite and the economic elite. Both systems glorify individuals and engage in the cult of personality. Just as the USSR was fascinated by the cult (and hatred) of its communist leaders, so western countries are fascinated by the actions of its ruling politicians and multibillionaires. It is all the same thing, just packaged differently.

Artful Dodger:

> Name calling is what the left does best.

I suppose that is why you labeled Obama a "Marxist". Is that not name calling?

Well, I am sure there are a lot of Marxists out there who would find the insinuantion of Obama a Marxist an insult. Obama is nothing but a capitalist banker's pet. If Obama were a Marxist, he would have dismantled the whole banking system and nationalized it, instead of giving away billions in bailout money. Stealing from working class taxpayers to give to capitalists, that is anything but a Marxist move. If anything, it is something Republicans would do. But then, the bailout was originally the brainchild of the Bush administration. Republicans thought of it, and Democrats carried it out. It just goes to show. When the chips are down, both parties end up being the same.

Artful Dodger:

> I notice you didn't disagree that he's the weakest president in history.

> and who ordered those strikes? Bush? Oh wait. Obama is president now. Guess he did it.

Isn't that a contradiction? He is so weak that he orders bombing Lybia.

Well, I suppose that what some people call "weakness" others might call restraint.

If it were Bush, he would be talking no UN backing, full scale shock and awe, followed by 500,000 troops, only to find a weak, spent army and no WMDs. Now, there is a proof of strength if I ever saw one.

Of course, to point to the fact that interfering in Lybia is against one of the main principles of the UN Charter is a moot point because the UN ceased to mean anything in the 1970s. Whatever happened to the UN not inerfering in the internal affairs of a nation?

Well, Obama is trying to play the "we support democracy" game. I wonder if he would do the same with Saudi Arabia? Oops! I forgot that this country that does not even allow women to run for elections (something that Lybia allowed under Ghadafi) is one of our favorite allies. Then there is Pakistan, and a few other favorites in the Middle East. I suppose that democracy is in the eye of the beholder.

The US and the Allies bomb Lybia. I am sure it is all about freedom and democracy. Oil has nothing to do with it, just like Iraq.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/gadhafi-forces-enter-rebel-citys-outskirts-20110319-072025-534.html

Artful Dodger:

> he can't actually implement ALL of his Marxist agenda

I am sure Obama is really, really a Marxist. I am sure he carries a little red book under his arm all the time. Either that, or he likes to watch films by the Marx Brothers.

I don't know what is funnier, calling Obama a Marxist, or calling a Marxist anybody who is not a right-wing Republican.

ScarletRose:

What about alcohol and tobacco? I think that if a teacher is a role model, then a teacher who smokes or drinks is a poor role model. Everyone agrees that a teacher who uses illegal drugs is not a role model but a bad example. What if children said: "I want to smoke just like my math teacher"? A teacher get s prescription for oxycontin from a doctor. Now the teacher uses oxycontin pills every day. That is an illegal abuse of prescription medication. Another teacher is caught smoking marihuana, and another is using crack. Then one teacher is injecting himself with heroin, and another with anabolic steroids. Each of those drugs is different. Should there be distincitons between drugs: legal, semi-legal, illegal. What about other addictions such as gambling addiction, sex addiction, even TV and food can be addictive. If a teacher is caught gambling, should he be fired? I think it is complex.

(V):

No matter what they are called, I still love my "Freedom fries".

GT:

> Jimmy took office in 1977.us troops left in 72, all over by 75

Thanks for the correction. Technically speaking, the Paris Peace Accords were signed by Richard Nixon's administration in 1972. However, hostilities from both sides continued until 1975 since the US continued to secretly bomb Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, and the Vietcong continued to push south. I suppose Jimmy Carter inherited the immediate aftermath of the war and he had to deal with issues such as the release of POWs, the search for MIA servicemen, and trying to mend fences with Vietnam. Jimmy Carter was not bad at that. It is where his reputation as a peace maker comes from. Well, the whole Iran mess hurt him badly, plus rising interest rates and a slow down in the economy as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. All that reached its peak during the Reagan administration. In retrospect, Reagan free market thinking came at the wrong time. It is why during his 8 years in office the US slid into recession.

Tuesday:

> I believe the hostage releases were planned for a certain time to make Carter look bad. That was my impression at the time.

It has been charged many times that Ronald Reagan was dealing with Iran behind the scenes prior to the election so as to delay the release of the hoistages and make sure that Jimmy Carter would lose. The hostages were released 20 minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn into office. During the election Ronald Reagan said that the USA should not pay ransom for people that had been kidnapped by "barbarians". However, one of his first acts in office was to unfreeze 7 billion dollars that had been frozen in American banks. All in all, there is no proof of any conspiracy, but the claim has been there for a long time.

rod03801:

> And? So? Doesn't change the fact that he is inept and just making a mess of things.

Show me a president that hasn't made a mess of things.

Richard Nixon: "I am not a crook!" Need I say more!

Jimmy Carter: Hostages in Iran. To his credit, he did put an end to the Vietnam war.

Ronald Regan: "Reaganomics" plunges the US into the worst recession since the Great Depression. He was the president who first made the deficit explode to stratospheric proportions. "In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation."

George H.W. Bush: His continued pursuit of "Reagonomics". His handling of the economy was so bad that he was not reelected in 1992 in spite of having won the Gulf War.

Bill Clinton: Somalia. Monica Lewinski. To his credit, he oversaw the largest economic and technological expansion of the 20th century, and finished his presidency with a surplus.

George W. Bush: Manufactured intelligence. A war without UN backing. Ruined many long-term alliances in Europe and messed up foreign policy for decades to come. Guantanamo. Abu Graib. Waterboarding. Sending 400,000 Iraqis to their deaths. The biggest stock market crash in history. Manufacturing the bank meltdown and subsequent bailout. He squandered the surplus that he inherited from Clinton and turned it into the worst fiscal and trade deficits in American history.

Barrack Obama: Healthcare (only if you are a Republican!) Iraq and Guantanamo are not done yet.

I think there are probably some reasons why Guantanamo is not closed yet:

1. Several countries don't want to repatriate the prisoners sitting there. Many of those prisoners have nowhere to go. Nobody wants them in their country.

2. Fear of reincidence is a factor too. There is guarantee that if any of these men end up free again they won't go back to doing what they did before being captured. Now they have even more reason to hate the USA,s ince many of them were imprisoned for years without formal trials or charges.

3. Prisoners disclosing what happened in Guantanamo is a factor too. What we know of interrogations there is only the tip of the iceberg. It is possible that these men are theatening to publicize what happened to them in Guantanamo. They might not be willing to buy their freedom with silence.

I think Obama was unrealistic in thinking he could close Guantanamo without giving thought to what they would do with those prisoners or how they would be legally processed. Am I disappointed with Obama? No, because I knew from the beginning that the US can NEVER close Guantanamo. The only way Guantanmo will close is if the lease runs out and the Cubans ask for their land back. Then the Gulag will have to move elsewhere.

Artful Dodger:

Oh, don't get me wrong. You will notice in my post I never said anything bad about Mr. Huckabee. If anything, he has a valid point. Single parents do have a much harder time making ends meet, as well as issues such as child care while they work, etc. It is also true that Hollywood gives an unrealistic view of parenting. Not everybody is rich and can afford to hire someone to help.

At the same time, V is right. This is not a one-dimensional problem. While money is a central issue, there are also issues such as culture, religion, government support systems (or lack thereof), extended families, legal implications (such as divorce, alimony, women's rights), etc. I think that nobody can pin it down to a single issue.

I don't know if people like Natalie Portman or Angelina Jolie are openly portraying themselves as a role models for other women. People do look up to famous people. It does not necessarily mean that those people represent wider social values.

I think that rather than finger pointing, our famous people and politicians should engage in a more constructive dialogue. If single-parent families are having a harder time raising their children, what can we do for them?

I think that Mr. Huckabee will make another run for the presidency. When that time comes, I am sure in his platform he will touch on the subject and present his own view of a constructive approach to the problem. At least one hopes that from a candidate that one would support when election time comes. Sadly, issues such as this are always lost to bigger issues that get all the media attention. Somehow terrorism, national defense and tax cuts always seem to take precedence over things such as helping those in need have a better life, or finding a better approach to prevent teenage pregnancy and our society's increasing problem of divorce and single-parenthood. Most likely by the next election this issue will not be at the forefront of Mr. Huckabee's mind because issues like dismantling the new health care legislation will probably be more on people's minds. I would not blame or criticize Mr. Huckabee (or any other politician) for that. Politicians do respond to what the public wants to see and hear.

I find the issues of single parenthood interesting since I myself grew up with a single mother. My father died when I was 6, so my mother had to cope alone with 3 children. Of course, while my mother being a single mother resulted out of widowhood, she was also a teenage mother (my older brother was born when she was 16.)

I am also a "Hispanic", which can mean anything as long as Spanish is your first language.

When I was a kid we were not rich. We were poor, but not miserably poor. My mother worked hard, but she managed to provide us with everything we needed. I started working when I was 13 to help pull my weight around the house. All three of us got a university education, and eventually all three of us grew up and got on with our lives.

Were we more or less happy that other families? I would say that we were the same in the sense that we had our share of good and bad times. Maybe I did not have a father growing up, but unlike my neighbor next door, I never had to see my dad get drunk and abuse my family. I never had to see my dad go out and cheat on my mom, only to find out later that I had half brothers and sisters here and there. Some of my relatives have brothers and sisters that were born out of wedlock and that they never even met.

My family was deeply religious (even though I I never believed in God, even as a child. Somehow I failed to have any faith.) My mother has remarked that if instead of weekly catechism classes she had had sexual education classes, she would not have ended up marrying at the age of 17 and having her children so young.

I find the religious arguments such as promoting "abstinence" instead of sexual education to be for the most part a failure. People have tried to suppress human sexuality not for years, not for decades, not for centuries, but for thousands of years. Abstinence always was and will always be a failed teaching because it denies human nature and the sexual nature of human behaviour. No offense to the religious out there, but promoting abstinence is hypocritical and foolish. It is like asking people to stop eating. You can't expect people to give up a very human need.

To say that children in marriages do better is not necessarily true. There are times when a single-parent family will do better than a badly dysfunctional two-parent family. Single parents might not have the same economic resources, but then neither do married couples in which one of the partners drinks or uses drugs or gambles, etc. Then when parenting money is only half the battle. Any parent can tell you that. If money was the only determining factor, the middle class would NEVER fail to parent well. Money helps, but it is not the key to parenting well.

To say that marriage is the key to parenting well, is also a misconception. There are happy marriages, and unhappy marriages. There are loving marriages, marriages of convenience and marriages of obligation. People stay married for a multitude of reasons. We wish it would always be love, but that is not always the case. Some people can parent well and marriage is an asset in that parenting process. Others can parent well, and never be married (as in some common law relationships). Some married in church, and others had only a civil marriage. The correlation between marriage and good parenting is at best coincidental. Some people have actually parented better AFTER divorce because once divorced the couple stopped fighting and could actually concentrate on meeting their children's needs.

What our young people really need is good sexual education. That is more than saying: "These are contraceptives, now, don't get pregnant." Good sexual education should imply teaching young people responsibility and good judgement in their choices. Good sexual education should also aim to give young people some of the important skills in parenting and raising children. Stigmatizing single parents or criticizing them is destructive and hypocritical because it fails to point out ot the fact that while marriage is an asset, it is not necessarily the key to parenting well.

Bwild:

> if I dont agree with homosexuals....dont call me a "homophobe"

I think the problem is that North American society is caught up in a search for political correctness. Everything we say has to be "politically correct".

There are people who disagree with homosexuality and will do so in a non-pathological manner. That is, they will express their opinion and avoid homosexuals without being destructive.

Then there are those who express almost a morbid fear of homosexuality. "If a gay man comes near my son, I will kill him." "God punishes homosexuals, just like he punishes murderers and rapists." There is a fear there, and homosexuality is equated with sin and crime. In some cases some of these men will go out and openly attack and even kill homosexuals.

In extreme cases, those who prosecute homosexuals are homosexuals themselves. Their "homophobia" is a veiled attempt at hiding their own ambiguous sexuality. The most famous case is J. Edgar Hoover, the founder of the FBI. For decades he kept secret files on the rich and powerful and documented their homosexuals relationships, while at the same time having a "brotherly" relationship with Clyde Tolson.

Culture is a big factor too. While North American society is more open, it is also deeply religious. Religious morality plays a role on how people see homosexuality. In some countries homosexuality is a crime under the law. Then is some societies homosexuality was acceptable and even encouraged (for example, ancient Greece, 15th century Florence).

One thing is certain. Our society lives in denial. It tries to hide homosexuality and refuses to accept homosexuality as a part of every society in the world going back for thousands of years. I do agree that political correctness can be taken too far. People should just lighten up on the whole issue. Let people live their lives as they see fit, without the state imposing its views of morality on human sexuality.

Two homosexual men are married and live happily and faithfully for their entire lives. They never cheat on each other or harm one another or anyone outside their relationship.

A heterosexual man is married. He beats up on his wife. Then he goes on to have mistresses several times during his life. Is he better or worse than the two homosexuals in the example above?

A church pastor preaches against homosexuality. Every week he collects money from his congregation. After a while he becomes wealthy and starts using his money to have affairs with several women. Is he better or worse than the two homosexuals above?

Note that the examples I gave are not unknown or rare. The question is: does morality have anything to do with sexual orientation? What is worse? A faithful homosexual or a dishonest heterosexual?

lizrising:

"How many are professional left wingers and how many are regular folks?" I never knew left wing was a profession. I suppose you need a university degree and a license to be a left winger!

Tuesday:

This cracks me up. It is not the first homophobic religious nut to be caught being a hypocrite. I suppose he can blame pornography for making him "pee in a bottle". He should go into the hall of fame for lame excuses.

Condoleeza Rice's former employer Chevron-Texaco was slapped with a 9.5 billion dollar fine for polluting the rainforest in Ecuador. Chevron is trying to weasel their way out of paying trying to pass the blame onto Texaco and Petroecuador. It just never occurred to them that the pollution that Texaco left behind would ever come back to haunt them. It is easy to acquire a company and then assume that if they did dirty things in a Third World country then those deliberate mistakes would never be prosecuted by the law. Well, I am sure Chevron has another option: leave Ecuador without paying and then open shop in another Third World country!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/indigenous-ecuadoran-woman-humbles-us-oil-giant-20110223-060924-978.html

Artful Dodger:

>A pure democracy is a weak government.

It is impossible to tell since that government has never existed in practice. Direct democracy remains something that was never tried in any country anyswhere. Democracy always was a priviledge of the rich and powerful. The working class were always there to merely cast a vote and surrender political power to a wealthy and powerful elite. It was like that from the beginnings of representative democracy in the late 18th century and continues like that in the present.

> I think what we have is good to a point. The problem lies where special interest
> groups can dictate (via - "vote for this and we'll vote for you!") policy that effects
> and entire population. But the Dems tried that sort of nonsense last year and many
> of them are booted out of office as a result.

And the Reps never did? I suppose the conservative right is really, really immune to special interest groups and lobbyists!

Artful Dodger:

Maybe citizens should push for a referendum on the issue. Then, there are so many issues that deserve a referendum. Health care, defense spending, bank bailouts, war declarations, etc. The great weakness of representative democracy is that it leaves the decision making in the hands of a handful of individuals. It is funny that under 1,000 people decide the fate of 300,000,000 others. I suppose representative democracy must be better than direct democracy.

Artful Dodger:

> A cultural mosaic is a country divided.

Divided in what sense? I doubt Canadians would see their country as divided. Divisions in Canada have more to do with regionalism than with culture per se. The biggest division is between "Francophone Canada" and "Anglophone Canada", and that has as much to do with local politicians wanting power for themselves than with language and culture. Francophones outside Quebec are more ambivalent about separation. Outside Quebec Canada is unified not by language and culture, but by values.

Well, in my experience people who fear multiculturalism usually are those who have lived in a culturally homogenous environment all their life. The fear stems from fear of change more than a fear of losing cultural identity. Most countries are a lot more multicultural than they would admit. There are always regional differences, differences in languages and dialects, differences in food, dress, music, etc. I doubt all countries are entirely homogeneous.

Tuesday:

Yes, point g is based on the Abu Graib problems. There were also some cases in extraordinary rendition in which prisoners were sodomized during interrogation. However, when those things happened, it is unclear how high in the chain of command knowledge went. There are claims of these things being known by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. However, nobody can prove that. One thing is certain. As the ultimate commanders of the military, the cabinet has its share of responsibility.

Artful Dodger:

> French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared Thursday that multiculturalism had failed,
> joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.

Being in Canada all I can say is that multiculturalism can mean a lot of things. Going out in the street here is like going to the UN. I drive a bus (city transit) for a living. In the bus I can hear 20 languages spoken at the same time. People here rarely care. Racism exists (as everywhere) and once in a while there will be trouble, particularly in some high schools where young kids get into fights motivated by race. People are sometimes discriminated when applying for jobs. However, legal protections are relativley strict. People here are all "something-Canadian". For example, French-Canadian, German-Canadian, etc. It is generally understood that people are proud of their individual communities, as well as of being Canadian.

Canada moved away from the "melting pot" approach in the 1960s and 1970s. Instead they talk of this "multicultural mosaic". All cultures and races trying to get along. It works most of the time, although there are problems such as discrimination against first nations people (natives) and blacks.

I can also understand how the French feel since much of their immigration comes from North Africa, particularly Algeria. When that happens, immigrants become clearly visible. I doubt the French would have so much of a problem with Latin American immigrants as they have with the Islamic minority. It has to do with cultural and religious similarity.

All I can say is that attempting to force people to melt into a society usually fails. If anything, it makes people more entrenched in the feeling of isolation that immigrants sometimes feel. Forcing moslems to abandon a woman's head dress might sound fine on the surface, but in reality it is a bad idea because it will just make moslems feel targetted and it will make them take a more radical stance. If the French had approached differently, they would have established rules.

For example, bus drivers here wear uniforms. Sikh bus drivers are allowed to keep on their turbans, as long as they conform to the colour of the uniform. So they wear a blue turban that matches the colour of the uniform shirt. They are not allowed to carry their traditional ritual knives. It is a compromise that works. The drivers don't feel discriminated. They are simply made to realize that things are a little different.

If woman wants to wear a head dress at work, she can do so, but with rules. For example, it has to be white. It should not obscure the mouth, nose and neck. It would have been a suitable compromise. You have your culture, and attempt to adapt to ours as well.

Well, if multiculturalism is a failure, then what is the alternative? Forcing people to adapt? How? With prison sentences? Expulsion from the country? Firing them from their jobs?

Artful Dodger:

> The claim being made here is that Bush is a war criminal. My ONLY question has to do
> with Obama. Is he also a war criminal? If yes, how so. If no, why not.

The U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare (Field Manual 27-10) states:

" 498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise:
a. Crimes against peace.
b. Crimes against humanity.
c. War crimes."

Now we turn to a definition of crimes against peace.
"A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing"."

The Bush administration can be justified in the war in Afghanistan since Al Qaida attacked the United States (9-11). However, the war in Iraq is a different matter. While the administration tried to make a case for going to war, by refusing to act with UN support, and then using manufactured and faulty information deliberately, the Bush (and Blair) administrations commited a war against peace. Barrack Obama has tried to end the conflict in Iraq. Obama cannot be blamed of a war against peace.

Now we turn to the issue of war crimes:
"The basic rules of International Humanitarian Law:
1. Persons hors de combat (bystanders) and those not taking part in hostilities shall be protected and treated humanely.
2. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.
3. The wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.
4. Captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
5. No one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.
6. Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives."

Although one cannot conclusively prove some of these:

Considering the conflict in Iraq:
The Bush administration violated principles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Whether the Obama administration continued with some of those violations is yet to be seen.

Considering the conflict in Afghanistan:
The Bush administration violated principles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The Obama administration has apparently violated principles 6 and 7 by using drones to attack targets that were not always military.

Well, on this point we can say that almost every war involves violations of International Humanitarian Law. Once the military are in control, they throw those principles out the window, and then go on to make excuses for their actions.

We move onto crimes against humanity. For that we look at the definition. The International Criminal Court in the Hague gives a definition:

" For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:[17]
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."

The Bush administration violated a, e, f and g knowingly. Abu Graib, Guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition violated some of those statutes at some point or another during the course of the war. The Obama administration has exposed some of those things, in particular extraordinary rendition by the CIA. However, the Obama administration has not punished any of those involved and some of those involved in those crimes have actually been promoted and now advise the president on national security matters.

All in all, one could argue that by using drones and harming civilians, the Obama administration violated some of the principles of International Humanitarian Law. In practice, who is going to prosecute? It is like the Bush administration. If people in the Bush administration commited crimes, who is going to prosecute? A law is meaningless because in war there is such a thing as "The Law of the Victor". Those who win the war make the laws, and if they break a law, nobody prosecutes them.

Artful Dodger:

> The libearal mind in the US wants to pin the "War Criminal" charge on George Bush and
> when pressed for reasons, they cite a number of things Bush authorized that were
> criminal in the eyes of International Law or simply against US standards. And yet, when
> it's pointed out that Obama is doing EXACTY THE SAME THINGS, they look at you as if
> they don't understand the connection.

I think that ultimately the legal implications of the war in Iraq are a moot point. Was Iraq a threat, and if so, how? The Bush administration made two claims about Iraq. First, that it was a "terrorist state" that supported Al Qaida and presumably other terror networks. Second, Iraq possessed WMDs in quantities that were a direct threat not just to the US, but to the rest of the world.

On the first point, even before the war Bush was dismissed as being wrong because nobody could prove a link between the Baathist regime in Iraq and Al Qaida. The Baathist Party was a secular organization and Saddam Hussein had traditionally oppressed Shiite moslems because he saw them as a threat against his power. The link between Iraq and Al Qaida was never proven and to date it has not been proven conclusively.

On the second point, as is well known now, the intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities was for the most part manufactured and both before and after the war no WMD stockpiles were ever found in Iraq. In most cases what the military found were abandoned installations, run down laboratories and the like. The large stockpiles of WMDs claimed by the Bush administration were never found. That is an undeniable fact. No chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were found in Iraq before and after the invasion.

So we are left with a war in which the political motivations were never proven. At the same time between 400,000 and 1.5 million people have died, depending on whose statistical data one believes. The US military confirms about 380,000 killed, while other things like the Iraq Body Count project project deaths into the 1.5 million range.

The American government has never publicly admitted the number of casualties before the American public. Either they don't care, or are embarrassed by this.

Added to this, is the fact that the main economic beneficiaries of the war were closely linked to the president and the immediate cabinet:
- Haliburton (Dick Cheney)
- Chevron (Condoleeza Rice)
- Exxon (Lee Raymond, the largest contributor to both of George W. Bush's campaigns)
- G.D. Searle (the largest supplier of biotechnology to Iraq, at the time run by Donald Rumsfeld)
- The Carlisle Group (where the Bush family and the Bin Laden family invested their funda privately, this company benefitted greatly by investing in oil and defense during the war)
- Arbusto Energy (a drilling and oil service company belonging tot he Bush family)

There are also defense contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. They profitted greatly from the war and gave massive donations to both Bush campaigns.

So, weighing the things that went on, one has to wonder if the war was motivated by fear or greed. Regardless of that, a lot of politicians voted for the war because they did not want to seem unpatriotic. Not so with Barrack Obama:

"Barack Obama ... was not a senator at the time of the voting of the Iraq War Resolution, but has repeatedly voiced his disapproval of it both before and during his senatorship, saying at an anti war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." He also spoke of the "undetermined length... undetermined cost, [and] undetermined consequences" which even a successful war would bring."

Now, is Barrack Obama a cause of the current problems or is he merely trying to deal with all the situations left behind by the previous administration? The Bush administration left behind a series of problems that will not be solved in the 8 years that Obama will be in office, and Iraq is one of those problems.

Are George W. Bush and his cabinet a bunch of war criminals? Each person must make up their own mind. Considering the evidence and the actions of the Bush administration, I would say that he is. The cabinet was neither blind nor dumb. They knew what they were doing, and they did it callously and without regard for the human cost of the war. Everything else seems to me nothing but excuses.

(V):

> One could say that the support for the 'El Presidente' of Egypt over the last 30 years
> was an artificial peace. That anyone challenging his government was arrested,
> imprisoned or tortured. Isn't then the USA admins supporting the regime yet another
> example of double standards!!

People in general forget small details of history that shed light on the nature of a president and why he was supported by the USA.

In the 1970s Anwar El Sadat was president of Egypt. Sadat managed to accomplish some things which were of great interest to the USA. First, he strengthened the Egyptian army, thereby getting rid of Soviet influence that had crept in during former president Nasser's regime. After Nasser's death, Sadat got rid of soviet equipment and advisors while at the same time strengthening the Egyptian army. This put him in a stronger political position to sign a peace treaty with Israel. This peace treaty was politically and strategically important to both the USA and Israel. That treaty got Sadat three things: Egypt was expelled from the Arab League, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and a fatwah (assassination) was called against him.

After Sadat was assassinated, there was a political vacuum in Egypt. A man had risen in rank and power in the military during the 1970s. That was vice-president General Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak promised to continue Egypt's peaceful policies towards Israel in exchange for economic and military support from Washington. Through the 1980s and into the present Mubarak proved to be a strong ally of the USA and a supporter of Israel. Over the years Egypt's military recieved more and more economic support from Washington. Today that support amounts to 1.8 billion USD and Egypt is the second largest recepient of military aid from the USA after Israel.

Besides supporting Israel, Mubarak also made Egypt a military ally of the USA during both wars in Iraq. As a full ally he provided equipment, personnel, land and air space, etc. He also cracked down on fundamentalist islamists who sought to drive him from power. While being called a dictator, Mubarak did everything right by Washington's standards. It is for this reason that his military receive, and will continue to receive, such strong economic support.

At this point Washington is trying to gauge how a new president will behave. Since the military still have all political and economic power, it is unlikely that things will change much in Egypt beyond just a new face in the presidency. Whoever is elected president will have to do things according to the dictates of the military, and Mubarak and his allies run the military. Washington will not tolerate any president who takes a belligerent stance towards Israel, or who allows fundamentalist Islamic groups to gain a foothold in the political landscape of Egypt.

Egyptians are torn between a desire for democracy, nationalism, Islamic religious fervor, a desire to support Palestinians, a desire to maintain good relations with the West, economic problems, and a latent military rule.

There will be those who will criticize President Obama for being ambiguous or apparently lacking resolution in supporting protesters. However, the stakes for both the USA and Israel are really big and the administration will not fully know who they are dealing with until after the elections in September. Will it be a Mubarak lackey, an extreme nationalist, a fundamentalist religious leader, a more moderate liberal? Anyone of them could rise to power depending on where the Egyptian military see what is most convenient for themselves.

Pedro Martínez:

> Clinton was as much a peacemaker as he was a warmaker.

Clinton was a lovah and not a fightah!

This comes as no surprise. The CIA has had nearly absolute power for 50 years. Can the CIA ever change?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_go_ot/us_cia_accountability

The Col:

I am sure religious extremists in Egypt are also worried about Sarah Palin!

Artful Dodger:

I picked on Palin's gaffes simply because they are the most talked about. However, I think all politicians say things that they later wish they could take back.

Here is a funny one from Barrack Obama during the electoral campaign in 2008:

"Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

I suppose if Americans divide California and Texas into smaller states then the US might make it to 58 States!


Here is a funny one from Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay:

"... he suggested British Columbia and California shared a border in front of the state's former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger during a stop in Winnipeg, MacKay sought to reassure Canadians that his grasp of geography actually isn't that bad."

That's almost as bad as saying that Alska and California share a border!


Here is one from French President Nicolas Sarkozy:

"I can accept distortions of competition from China or India, but not from Germany. I'm not saying that simply because I'm in Germany. "

The problem is that he was in France at the time, in the border region of Alsace. No wonder all the farmers in the crowd booed him!

One from George W. Bush:
"Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease"

Sarah Palin:
"You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska"

George W. Bush
"Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease"

Sarah Palin
"You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska"

John McCain
"We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid that it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border." (Did Iran just disappear off the map?)

Rep. Hank Jonhson (Dem.) speaking about the island of Guam:
"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize." (I guess Guam must be made of styrofoam!)

Dan Quayle during a speech as vice-president:
"I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix."

Dick Cheney, in a TV interview speaking of Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela:
"The people of Peru, I think, deserve better."

Here is a classic:
Tim Kayne (Dem.), former Governor of Virginia:
"Well, first, Joe [Biden] comes from a state, Delaware, that borders Virginia."
The problem is, Delaware and Virginia share no borders. One supposes the governor of the state would know that.

We could go on and on. That is the problem with unscripted public appearances. Anything can happen, and once it happens, there is no way to take it back.

"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." -- Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010

North, south, what's the dif?!

"They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan." -- Sarah Palin, speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Oct. 5, 2008

And to think we never knew that Afghanistan is sandwitched somewhere between Mexico and New Mexico!

The day after Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, FOX News reported that the McCain campaign had been greatly concerned with Sarah Palin's lack of "knowledgeability [sic] necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency," and specifically that she "didn't understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself."

Africa is a country. Is Asia a country too?

Once in a while everyone puts their foot in it!

I am sure we could come up with similar ones from just about every prominent politican out there.

rod03801:

> I'm just disgusted by the waste. That infuriates me. If I waste my own money, I pay
> for it dearly. But that's just it. I personally wasted it. Someone else wasting my
> money? No thanks.

I entirely agree with this. All governments, big and small, are inefficient and wasteful. I chose two examples at the extremes because in both casers there is inefficiency and waste. Guatemlans pay little taxes, and they get little for it. Austrians pay a lot, and get a lot for it. Both cases at the extremes work inefficiently. In a perfect world governments would operate in balance but in reality petty corruption and poor management lead to either money being wasted or in worst cases simply stolen or given to private companies run by friends.

> Personally, I'm fine with how healthcare always has been, for the most part. There
> are things that need looking at, of course! But for the government to basically take it > over? No no! It's going to become a mess. And DEFINITELY if it means gourmet
> menus in hospitals, free room and board for relatives in there, and 3 day stays for
> relatively minor procedures!

Again, my examples are extremes. My cousin in Guatemala is a doctor. He gave me a tour of a publicly run hospital there. They had no disinfectant, and they couldn't afford to repair the windows. So the operating theater had an open window and I could see plain old house flies flying around the room. Outside there were natives mostly, peasants who were too poor to go anywhere else. Then when my brother had his twin boys they ended up in a private hospital for 5 weeks. My brother paid about US$10,000 per week so they could stay in the intensive care unit. They were born prematurely. The clinic was the best money could buy, even better than you would see here in Canada. If you have the money, private is the way to go. If you are poor, you get insects flying around you as you get operated. That is what you get with next to no state involvement in healthcare.

Austrians of course sit on the opposite side. The state absorbed the cost and paid for it with high taxes. Austrians can also pay for private insurance. However, why would anyone? You already pay taxes, so why give even more hard-earned money to a private company.


> And you say historically, privatization has not always been the best solution. Well,
> I'd say government bureaucracy has been the best solution even less.

I think the worst thing is this. Privatization does not eliminate bureacracy. It merely transfers it from the public to the private sector. Privatization does not really save money to the state. It merely transfers tax dollars from the state into the hands of a private (or publicly traded) company. There is no guarantee that having a private company do things for the government will necessarily lead to tax savings.

The theory has always been like this. The state is bureacratic and inefficient at running things. If the state instead tenders contracts to private companies, then those companies have to compete for the contracts and only those that can do things at a better price will get the contracts. That leads to savings because the government has to pay less as companies compete by offering lower prices.

In reality things are completely different. Contracts are no always granted according to price efficiency, but rather based on other factors such as lobbying and other relationships between government and company employees.

Bureaucrats grant contracts according to friendships, campaign donations, political affiliations, sometimes even religious affiliations. That means that pricing is often inefficient. Large companies with more capital can use that capital to influence the outcome of the contract tendering process. More often than not, large companies will win over smaller companies. The state then becomes a sustainer of monopolies and large corporations.

So bureacracy and petty corruption mean that privatization is not always the best solution to state inefficiency, and very often it can exhacerbate the problem. Privatization would work in a system free of corruption, influence meddling, lobbying and special interest groups. There is also no guarantee that a private company can do things at a lower price. A company would if it could lower employee salaries and use cheaper materials and resources. However, that is not necessarily the case. Now we just took tax dollars, and made somebody rich with them, with no guarantee of savings for the state. As always, theory and practice don't always go together.

SL-Mark:
> Austria is not like Germany as you claim. Germany has perhaps the best health care in the world. It is privately run

There is one aspect of the health care system in Germany thqt is different from Austria:

"All salaried employees must have a public health insurance. Only public officers, self-employed people and employees with a large income above c. €50,000 (adjusted yearly) may join the private system."

"A person that opts out of the public health insurance system and gets private health insurance can not go back later to the public system, even if income drops below the level required for private selection. Since private health insurance is usually more expensive than public health insurance one will be required to pay the higher premiums with less income."

The Germans have done it right. If you think you are rich enough to pay for private insurance, then there is no going back later. If you are rich and you lose your money, you are screwed because you cannot go back to the public system. If you are rich, you better stay rich!

rod03801:

> Less Govt!

What exactly does that mean? Less people employed by the government? If so, in what areas? Where is it more important to cut?

What would you rather have? Less health care? Less education? Less military? Less intelligence? Less of everything?

One thing is certain? Given the choice between less health care and less military, what is more important? Should tax dollars be used to build hospitals or military bases? Schools? Roads and railways?

I suppose perception is a big thing too. Propaganda and fear play a big factor in what people see as more or less important.

If the government is bad at running things, who should do it? The private sector? What guarantee is there that somebody running things for profit will do it better, or more cheaply? Historically, privatization has not always been the best solution. Sometimes privatization has only made running things more expensive, because those who do it for profit want more money rather than more efficiency.

I find it interesting to see people go on about income and corporate taxes. Having visited and lived in a few countries I can say that when it comes to taxes, people get what they pay for. If you pay little, you get little. If you pay a lot, you get a lot more.

Case 1: Guatemala
This is where I was born and lived during my childhood. Guatemala is considerd a "tax shelter" meaning that the taxation rate is so low that opening bank accounts and businesses in that country is an "advantage" against the higher taxation rates paid in North America and Europe. The average Guatemalan citizen pays about 6% income tax. Of course, the rich and powerful can exploit local corruption to avoid paying taxes at all. That is the case with most large foreign coprorations in the country. In exchange for the 6% income tax, people get next to no helath care and next to no education. As a result, about 70% of the population is illiterate (although the literacy rate has improved in recent years.) Publicly run hospitals are understaffed, underequipped and they don't have the money or medicines to take care of their patients. In Guatemala is you are rich you can pay for private schools and private universities. You can pay for private clinics and get top of the line health care. If you are poor you are desined to be illeterate and to die of some torpical disease that could have been prevented or cured with adequate medicines or vaccines.

Case 2: Austria
Not so differnt from Germany and other European countries. My ex and my son live there. Most Austrian citizens pay between 21% and 50% income tax. On the average, the rate runs about 41%. That means that 41 cents of every Euro people make is going into the government's hands. What do people get as a result? Free healthcare. I was there when my son had this minor nose operation. In most places he would have gone in and out of the hospital for a few hours. Instead they kept him 3 days. The hospital nurse came with a menu like in a restaurant. My ex had a bed assigned to her because they did not want my son to stay alone at night. The place was like a hotel more than a hospital, and this was the "shabby, old hospital" rather than the newer, more modern one. Education is free through gymnasium (roughly high school), and university is heavily subsidized, with people paying on the average 366 Euros per term (about US $500). Not only that, but if a student completes a degree on the alloted time, the fees are waived and university becomes free. Compare that with the thousands it costs to get an education in North America.

We can say that Austria and Guatemala sit in opposite sides of the coin. High and low taxes. A lot of services versus no services. People get what they pay for.

The interesting thing is perception. Many Austrians dislike the high taxes, and government and business are contantly at odds over taxation. Guatemalans hate having to pay even the 6%. Guatemalans also complain constantly about taxes. Very often it is not what people pay, but the perception they have of how the government spends taxes.

Guatemalans would be only too happy to get free education and free healthcare, but they would never accept reforming the taxation system and raising taxes steeply. Austrians would love to have their taxes reduced to 6%, but they would never accept losing the services they get.

Ultimately, who lives better? Austrians certainly do. So what is better? A more "socialist" or a more "capitalist" government? Up to a point, countries with low taxation rates seem generally worse off than those countries with higher taxation rates. Taxes have to be high enough to allow the government to operate and to invest in the economy, but not so high that the business sector get choked to death. It is a difficult balance to maintain.

SL-Mark:

> "In making such a request, I would have at least expected the courtesy that you provided some of your own statistical data to back your argument first."

That is exactly my point. There is no data to support the position. The data is at best sketchy. Look at rises in minimum wage and they are correlated more to rises in inflation than to the slowdown of economic growth. Governments typically rise minimum wages when they have little choice left. Inflation has eroded people's spending capacity to such an extent that only a rise in minimum wage can ensure that the lowest segments of society have enough to afford to live. The question is, what caused the economic slowdown: Inflation? Higher wages? People spending less due to inflation? As with all economics and econometric data, the information is highly incomplete. To assert that higher minimum wages lead to a slowing of the economy is like saying that because it is a cold day you will most likely catch a flu. It is mere conjecture.

People often forget that most western governments interpret economic data to justify government policy. A good example of this is the bank meltdown of 2008. During the Bush administration Allan Greenspan and other leading economists justified "liberalizing" the credit markets, including mortgage lending rules and third party lending (private banks lending to other banks). The idea was that the credit market would "sort itself out" and that less government intervention would stimulate the economy by making it easier to borrow and lend money to individuals and institutions. Instead banks figured they could keep lending and borrowing recklessly until they were so over-extended that the whole banking system faced a catastrophic meltdown. The so-called genius economists had interpreted financial data to justify government policy, rather than letting the real economy dictate how the government should act.

> "Even Ireland in its latest austerity budget actually reduced the statutory minimum wage, recognising the fact it is a hindrance to growth. "

Ireland now has lowered the minimum wage. Is that a solution? Or is the financial crisis being used as an excuse to undermine the working class? If lowering the minimum wage is a solution, what caused the problem in the first place? Was it a high a minimum wage? Or was it a reckless government that borrowed money without ever thinking that they would have to pay it back some day? Who is to blame? The workers who get the minimum wage? The inept government that mismanaged its finances? The unscrupulous lenders who lent money to Ireland knowing fully well that the country would be in trouble at some point?

Finally, who makes a profit here? If all else fails, just follow the money trail, and that will lead you to the Holy Grail. The Anglo-Irish Bank overextended itself in the property market. I found this snipped in Wikipedia:

"In many deals, Anglo Irish Bank would lend to wealthy individuals to further their equity participation. According to the CEO of Ireland's the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), loan-to-value on deals was as high as 100%. As a result the bank was totally exposed to any decline in value. In many cases, Anglo took personal guarantees as security. However, NAMA attaches no value to these personal guarantees.

Of the €36.5 billion of loans not being transferred to NAMA, Anglo Irish Bank has taken a provision of €4.9 billion... ... Anglo Irish Bank has large exposures to entrepreneurs such as Seán Quinn of Quinn Group and Barry O’Callaghan, of EMPG. In both cases, the bank's security was limited and largely on the men's shares in businesses. The provision of €4.9 billion compares with impaired loans of €9.5 billion at the end of December 2009."

So it is the minimum wage that is a hindrance to growth in Ireland. Silly me for thinking all along that it was the bankers and their capitalist friends who were getting all those huge loans knowing fully well that once they declared bankruptcy they would not have to pay them back. As a result of this fiasco the Irish government bought 75% of the Anglo-Irish Bank's stock, effectively being forced to nationalize the bank or face a catastrophic meltdown.

I am sure it was the minimum wage all along. If they had just kept the minimum wages low, the greedy capitalists who played roulette with Ireland's banking sytem would have been OK and there would have been no meltdown.

All in all, Ireland lowered the minimum wage, not to justify economic growth, but to do a favour to the same rich people who took the Irish working classes and their hard-earned savings to the cleaners. Who has the capital to invest in those businesses that will hire at a lower minimum wage? Those who stole the capital in the first place! Now there will be real economic growth due to more "investment" stimulated by "lower labour costs".

> "Yes, this is true and as the Western economies shoot themselves in the foot with these social polices which hurt competitiveness, we can see other nations now starting to overtake on the huge head start we had. This head start of course achieved through minimal intervention in business and the economy."

Like China? China is of course, NOT under the control of an all powerful communist party. The reason why China is attractive to western companies is because it has the biggest population on the earth, a low per capita income, and a communist party that is corrupt and can easily be bought to advantage. China has almost no environmental protection policies and worker safety policies. When the local population has asked that polution be reduced, nothing is done because the communist government has its greasy fingers EVERYWHERE. China is a bad example, because it is a form of state capitalism. The state uses the population as cheap labour, and that is what has made China attractive to foreign companies. The massive flow of capital into China is of some benefit to the local population, but it has mostly gone into the hands of a local business and comuunist party elite. Listening to people talk about China one would think that China REALLY REALLY got rid of its millions of poor people.

> "However, I maintain that the minimum wage does effect the supply and demand for labour in a way that causes greater unemployment."

I suppose that if the price of labout became very high overnight then unemployment would rise rapidly. Historically, rises in minimum wage occurred in response to inflationary pressures. I think it would be difficult to prove whether it was higher wages or inflation that lead to lower consumption, lower demand for labour and eventually higher unemployment.

In reality the picture is complex. Inflation and higher wages go together. It is unavoidable in a system that tries to stave off mass discontent with some benefits for people with lower income. Perhaps a better interpretation is one of a continuos cycle.

Inflation -> Lower consumption -> Decreased demand for goods -> Higher unemployment

Higher minimum wage -> higher overall wages -> higher consumption -> Increased demand for goods -> lower unemployment

Higher minimum wage -> lower rate of capital investment -> less job creation -> higher unemployment

Under this logic rises in the minimum wage could potentially be both bad or good.

If inflation is triggering a long term rise in minimum wage, then it is tempting to blame the minimum wage for an economic slowdown. However, the minimum wage does not rise continuosly. Minimum wages rise sporadically. In many cases they will remain the same for years. Goverments usually rise the minimum wage as a last resort, when other avenues of economic stimulus have failed. It is for this reason that statistical data cannot prove much.

Locally, here in Canada I have seen minimum wages rise both during recession and boom times. During recession, to stimulate spending. During boom times to offset higher inflation. It seems that the minimum wage is more a symptom than a cause of the economic growth or slowdown.

SL-Mark:

Unfortunately, a sarcastic tone cannot be written down and only implied in typing. Of course, you are saying that increases in minimum wage are bad for the economy, competitiveness, etc.

If that is the case, I am sure there is econometric data to support that argument. Show me statistical data that shows that increases in the minimum wage have led to a decline in economic growth. There should be a graph that shows the correlation. Hard data, not some regurgitated "free market" economics.

> "These people you speak of took risk, provided opportunity to many and improved life for all."

Adam Smith might have spoken of the "invisible hand". That was nice of him and the rich in Scotland liked it as they amassed their wealth using women and children in textile factories in Scotland. Capitalists do things not for the benefit of others, but for the benefit of their own pockets. The only reason why capitalists ship jobs overseas is because profits are greatest when the labour is cheapest. That is why right wing economists hate the minimum wage. Higher minimum wage means lower profits for the capitalist class.

> "Look at any old city and ask yourself who built those magnificent houses, art galleries, theatres, universities, museums, railways, etc. etc. It was not government. "

No, it was not the government. It was not the church or the aristocracy or the rich. All those nice buildings were built with working class hands. It was workers who set mortar to stone and who carved wood and marble. It was also the work of the working class that generated the wealth used to build those places. The rich and the church merely took that wealth and used it to build those monuments for themselves.

You say that antiques are highly sought after. That is because even when there was no minimum wage people were skilled and worked hard. The argument that minimum wage increases discourages people from working hard or being skilled is an empty argument. Nobody can prove that with hard science or hard statistical data.

Today we have a minimum wage. Are we more or less skilled today than we were in the 19th century? We have technical developments like computers and cell phones, but then, in the past people built things by hand and made all those antiques.

The minimum wage might change, but human need and human skill remain the same. It is all a matter of how technical development modifies the necessary skills that satisfy human need. You can make a wooden chair by hand, or with computerized power tools.

If decreases in minimum wage lead to greater competitiveness and a more skilled labour force, then countires with the lowest minimum wages would have the most skilled and most competitive labour market.

But the economic reality proves otherwise. The lower the income of people in a country, the less competitive and the less skilled its labour becomes. If people have a very low minimum income, then they cannot afford to be educated. That means that their skill set will be lower because skills are learned, and it is education that teaches people those skills. Low minimum wages means a less skilled labour force.

The reason why right wing economists say that higher wages are "less competitive" is because the capitalist class wants to pay the lowest possible wages for the same work. China's labour market is "more competitive" than the labour market of the USA because in China goods are manufactured by paying workers approximately 1/30th of what the average American worker earns. China is more "competitive" because the capitalist class has no problems at all shipping its production there and making much bigger profits by paying less in salaries. What you call "competitive market liquidity" is no more than cheap labour.

The minimum wage damages the economy because those rich people who own business have to pay more to their workers and that means that the profits of the rich get a little bit smaller. We should go back to the 19th century and eliminate the minimum wage. In that way children will go back to work, women will get paid a lot less, older workers can be easily replaced by younger ones, and the rich business owners can "improve their economy" by keeping those wages for themselves.

On the plus side, those rich business owners will stop sending jobs by "outsourcing" overseas. Since there is no minimum wage, business owners don't have to open factories in poor countries. Everything can be manufactured cheaply right here at home.

On the down side, since the wages of the working class will shrink, all those workers who buy all those goods will have less money to buy junk with. However, that can be partially offset by "lower manufacturing costs" since goods are manufactured cheaper due to "lower labour costs".

> "By introducing the minimum wage you effectively reduce the differentiation and reward, hence providing less encouragement for a skilled labour force."

Let's face it. The minimum wage just leads to lazy, stubborn, unskilled workers. That is why in the 19th century those handmade goods were made without skill or ability. By giving people a minimum wage there is just no "incentive" to learn and be productive. Proof lies in the fact that in the 19th century when there was no minimum wage "soooo" many people were educated and literate as compared to today when the minimum wage allows the working class to pay for an education for their children.

We should get rid of the minimum wage, along with employment insurance, health care and universally available education. In that way we can go back to the good old days when the poor were so desperate that communism actually looked attractive.

ScarletRose:

> Okay.. so why don't we use our own oil?? Why refine it to send it off just to get oil from somewhere else??

In answer to your first question: the US does not use its own oil because it does not have enough. Even if the companies were to drill in Alaska and do deep sea drilling in the gulf of Mexico, the US still wouldn't have enough oil to meet the demand.

The US has approximately 5% of the people in the world. Yet it consumes about 36% of the crude oil in the world. Based on pure statistics, the average American citizen is consuming about 6 times the amount of oil that a person in a developing country (like China) would consume. This has to do with lifestyle. Americans like big cars (at least ehy did in the past. That trend is changing). Americans use a lot of electricity and energy for heating, air conditioning and illumination (consider all the Christmas lights in the street, for example).

It is this high demand that has moved the US to import most of its oil. Here in Alberta, Canada, we produce enough oil to supply about 15% of American demand. We are the biggest supplier of oil to the US now. We supply even more oil than Saudi Arabia. Both American and Canadian companies have pursued oil exploration and drilling in Canada because we are a friendly country to the US. We are a stable democracy and we share the largest undefended border in the world.

In reality the US refines most of its own crude oil, and exports little refined product. What the US exports is technology for exploration, drilling and refining.

A change in energy policy in the US (or around the world for that matter) will require not just a change in government attitude, but also a change in the attitude of suppliers (oil and energy companies) and a change in the attitude of consumers. Oil is the biggest business in the world and suppliers (companies, OPEC, etc.) are constantly trying to manipulate prices to maximize their profits. Governments are corrupt and they sell their integrity to oil companies. Consumers just want cheap, abundant energy and until recently they were not willing to change their consumption patterns. Now that oil is so expensive we are starting to see a shift in consumer attitude. People wants to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, appliances and vehicles. However, we forget that only 25 years ago most people didn't care much for saving energy.

> "Come here? ADAPT!. Don't like it? LEAVE!"

People always forget what the origins of modern immigration policies in English-speaking countries are.

It used to be that places like Europe, The USA, Canada, Japan, etc. enjoyed a relatively steady population growth because people used to have 4 or 5 children per family. Then as people became more educated, they decided that having 1 or 2 children was enough. As the birth rate dropped, economic growth started to slow down and a young labour force was needed to maintain economic growth and sustain an aging population. In some countries things became such that they actually started experiencing negative population growth, meaning that less people were born than the number of those who died.

Immigration became an economic necessity to provide a steady source of low priced labour. Places like Canada, the USA, Australia and Western Europe accept millions of immigrants each year. Most of those immigrants end up doing work for wages below what the local population would accept. It is the economic reality of those who immigrate out of economic need.

Of course, all those people come with their own culture and language. The local population want the immigrants to learn the language and integrate. If immigrants arrive as young kids, they will learn the language easily and integrate readily into their new country. If immigrants come as adults, the story is different. Having to work, raise a family, and meet daily lives responsibilities is not conducive to easily learning a new language.

The people who scream "Adapt" are usually those who were never immigrants themselves and who do not realize that for an adult to learn a new language is no piece of cake. Neither is it easy for an adult to abandon customs and religion. To put it into perspective: "Would the average western woman be willing to live in the way that women live in some Islamic countries in Asia and Africa?" Of course, western culture is "superior", so it is the others who should adapt.

In reality, there is a "simple" solution to all this. Australians (or whoever) don't have to put up with immigrants. All that they have to do is have women quit their jobs, stay home and raise families with 5 or 6 kids. That is what their grandparents' generation did, and they did not always need to bring all those immigrants who refuse to abandon their religions. believes, customs and languages. I wonder if the same politicians who have the "guts" to yell at immigrants would also have the guts to yell at women for not quitting their jobs and staying home to raise more kids?

(V):

> And no... we are not the only species to wage war against each other. But we are the only species to be able to wage war on a global scale.

Other animals in this planet do it out of instinct.

Male lions will kill the cubs in the pride when they take over the alpha male position from an older male. So the females gang up on the alpha male to protect the cubs.

Male crocodiles will often eat the tiny younglings swimming in the water. So a female crocodile will carry her younglings on her back to protect them.

Many arthropods will eat each other, or their mates after mating. For example, dragonfly larvae often prey on their own species in the water. Female spiders routinely eat the males after mating.

Ants attack other ant colonies. So do bees.

The difference is, we human beings are "intelligent". Animals kill as a way to preserve their species or improve the chances that their own genes will be passed on ot the next generation. But we human. We kill for fun. We kill for oil. We kill for gold. We kill for religion, or race or sexual orientation. We kill for any excuse we can find, and when we can't find an excuse, we just don't care. It was not enough to kill with sticks, so we invented spears and arrows. Then gunpowder, guns, artillery, airplanes, bacteria, viruses, nuclear bombs, etc.

If you believe in the Bible, the Bible says that we we were made in God's image. But the Bible is wrong. I don't think God is insane. I doubt God thought making nuclear bombs was good. Neither did God think that owning weapons is a good think. I refuse to believe in a God who creates beings in his own image, and that image is one of murderers and cutthroats.

If you don't believe in God, then human beings evolved as nature's mistake. A being that will hunt everything that moves must be a mistake in evolution. At some point we have killed everything that walks, crawls, slithers, swims or flies on the face of the Earth. Humanity is proof that evolution failed. The human brain, for all its potential and creativity, is in essence a defective organ. Recent research shows tht there is a gene associated with violence and psychopathy.

Either God created that gene, or it evolved. Either way, that gene is a mistake, and there is nothing we can do to get rid of it.

The reality in all this gun debate is that guns are a symptom but not the disease. The real problem lies in human nature itself. We could take aways guns, knives, swords, machetes, etc. People would still go out and beat each other to a pulp with bare fists. We could chop off people's arms, and they would still kill each other with their teeth.

Human beings are the only animal that preys on its own species, and we do it for fun. We are nature's mistake. We have a brain. We know logically that fighting and killing are wrong. Yet we still fight and kill each other. We tell ourselves we do it for some higher principle, but that is just our excuse because we refuse to admit that we do it for the fun of it.

We are so insane that we have enough weapons to kill every living thing on this planet, and we still deceive ourselves into believing that we have all those weapons for "self-defense", "national security", or some non-existent abstract ideology.

We spend more money on weapons and weapons research than we spend on curing cancer or HIV, or than we spend on helping the poor. I see all these "good Christians" and "good Moslems" and "good whatevers" who care more about protecting their rights to own guns, or their right to get rich, but who would do precious little to help a hungry child anywhere else in the world. These people will say in the same breath that they love God, and that they will defend the right to own guns. I suppose there is no contradiction in saying that they believe in "God is love" and "you deserve to own a weapon".

Human beings are naturally selfish and cruel. That is the disease. Using guns to kill is merely a symptom of that disease. Take away guns and people will still find yet other weapons to kill with.

Take a piece of paper and quickly write down 10 ways to kill people:

Guns, knives, axes, swords, grenades, tanks, war planes, nuclear bombs, bare fists, kicking, poison, anthrax, mustard gas, a rope, etc.

That took 20 seconds.

Now, quickly write down 10 ways to save a hungry child:

Give money, give food ...

I think I am stumped.

Artful Dodger:

> I've never heard the loony left complain about cars in the way they complain about guns.

I work as a bus driver. Every day I see every stupid mistake that people make when they drive. Sometimes I wonder how it is that people don't get killed more often by cars. If making stupid driving mistakes led to losing one's driver's license, I think at least 50% of the people out there would not deserve to have a license at all. It would be good in a way. More people would walk and get their daily exercise.