| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Debbie Schlussel has a terrific piece on the consummation of Fox's capitulation to CAIR, a PSA read by Kiefer Sutherland:
It was too good to be true.FOX’s “24” is the most exciting show on TV, this season. Action. Adventure. And it actually tells the truth about Islamic terrorists.
They are here on our shores, pretending to be loyal Americans, and they are plotting to take over our country. With the help of plenty of complicit Muslim-Americans, working for the government and government contractors.
Unfortunately, 9/11 wasn’t enough to prove that to many Americans. Way too many Americans—especially the ones deciding what we see on the big and small screens.
Take Suhail Khan, who was the Bush White House’s director of Muslim Outreach. His father, Mahboob Khan, brought Al-Qaeda chief Ayman Al-Zawahiri into the United States and into his mosque, twice in the mid-to-late ‘90s, to raise money for Al-Qaeda. Suhail Khan invited anti-American terrorists, like indicted Islamic Jihad chief Sami Al-Arian, into the White House to meet with the President.
But a “West Wing” episode written about Khan was laudatory of his loyalty to America.
(Incredibly, Khan remains in the Bush Administration as General Counsel to the Federal Highway Administration, where he’s informed of all transports of military and nuclear weapons and hazardous material on federal highways.)
I’ve written about Hollywood’s worship at the politically correct alter of radical Islam. Despite the reality that all contemporary terrorists are Muslim, Hollywood operates in another universe where all terrorists are Hispanic drug-dealers and neo-Nazis – anybody but Muslims. Because, as we all know, Hispanic drug-dealers and neo-Nazis blew up New York buildings, hijacked planes, murdered their New Jersey Coptic neighbors, and beheaded Americans in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
With “24,” FOX violated this taboo. Therefore, FOX must now repent for committing the heinous sin of actually portraying the truth about the most serious problem of our time.
In the middle of Monday’s episode of “24,” viewers were treated to the following mea culpa, courtesy of Kiefer Sutherland, “24”’s star:
"Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox's ‘24’. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind."
Poor Kiefer. Until “24,” his most famous role was as one of Julia Robert’s jilted bridegrooms on his wedding day. And that wasn’t a role. It was real life. Now the only role he apparently aspires to is lover to 72 dark-eyed virgins, or at least repenter to those martyrs who aim for that role.
Any salivating Pavlov’s dog or monkey seeking a banana for lunch would read that statement, too. Apparently, Kiefer is no better. At mid-life, he doesn’t want to lose his only successful acting gig. So, he’ll do as he’s told by the FOX network execs, who can’t take the heat from whining Islamic terror apologists. He’s ignorant of the Lackawanna Six and assorted other Muslim-American terrorists caught in this country on a daily basis.
Ironically, the two groups behind this apology for the existence of “24” are the groups that demonstrate how the American Muslim community actually does NOT stand firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting terrorism in every form.
In fact, the groups—Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—have ties to HAMAS and Al-Qaeda, and expressly support Al-Qaeda network terrorists.
MPAC is headed by Salam Al-Marayati. Al-Marayati, a close friend of pro-Hezbollah Congressman Darrell Issa, is himself a Hezbollah fan. He defended Hezbollah’s murder of over 300 U.S. Marines and civilians while they slept and claimed that Hezbollah, a major component of the Al-Qaeda network, is not a terrorist group. Al-Marayati equated “jihad” with the statements of Patrick Henry.
Al-Marayati’s concern for the portrayal of Muslims as terrorist is outdone by his passion for the vilification of Jews and Israelis as terrorists. Hours after the 9/11 attacks, he accused Israel of perpetrating them. In an e-mail, this “moderate” Muslim approvingly quoted Hitler: “As Hitler said, the more intelligent the Jew is, the more he lies.” No Kiefer Sutherland-esque apologies.
Al-Marayati’s wife, Dr. Laila Al-Marayati, could be the real life version of the mother in “24”’s terror cell. The charity she heads, KinderUSA, recently shut down and is under investigation for funding HAMAS. Its executive director and a board member were held in Israel for aiding terrorists. KinderUSA is tied to the Holy Land Foundation, whose employees have been indicted for funding and ties to HAMAS and Al-Qaeda. Dr. Al-Marayati told the Los Angeles Times that KinderUSA avoided charges of knowingly helping suicide bombers' families by not asking how an orphan's father died.
Then, there’s CAIR. Oliver “Buck” Revell and Steve Pomerantz, former FBI Directors of Counterterrorism, call CAIR, a HAMAS front-group. Saudi-funded CAIR got its original seed money and executive director, Nihad Awad, from another group (Islamic Association for Palestine) that was started with $490,000 from the personal bank account of indicted HAMAS political director Moussa Abu Marzook. Awad, like MPAC’s Al-Marayati, is an avowed supporter of HAMAS and Hezbollah. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper refuses to denounce Bin Laden.
Several CAIR officials and associates have been convicted of terrorism, money-laundering, and fraud charges, including CAIR “communications specialist and civil rights coordinator” Ismail Royer, who pled guilty to helping Al-Qaeda’s terror network. CAIR disseminated assassination fatwas against moderate Muslim Americans. A recent CAIR Michigan confab featured more of the same.
Shohreh Aghdashloo, who plays the mother in “24”’s terror cell, and Jonathan Ahdout, who plays her son, also played Islamic mother and son in the Oprah-promoted 2003 movie, “House of Sand and Fog." There was no Keifer-esque disclaimer in that movie, in which the Muslims were hard-working, sympathetic, fatal victims of Americans, and the Americans were a loser, alcoholic, psycho maid, and an evil, philandering, murderous cop.
But in the case of “24,” even Aghdashloo, an Iranian Muslim, dismisses CAIR and MPAC. "They think after what happened on 9/11 that we're going to forget it?" she told USA Today.
Apparently, we’ve already forgotten. That’s what they’re banking on.
Posted by Robert at February 9, 2005 9:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This is heartening.
But in the case of “24,” even Aghdashloo, an Iranian Muslim, dismisses CAIR and MPAC. "They think after what happened on 9/11 that we're going to forget it?" she told USA Today.
It's important to give credit where credit is due. American Muslims - not counting CAIR and MPAC - aren't necessarily the enemy. CAIR and MPAC have tried to minimize and excuse terrorism too many times. Combine this with their opposition to any free speech they think might besmirch oh-so-peaceful Islam. I find CAIR and MPAC to be nothing but propagandists and taqiyya masters. Only an academic could be stupid enough to buy what they're selling.
Posted by: Beagle![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 9, 2005 9:55 AM
A couple of years ago there was a movie "Arlington Road", in which Tim Robbins and Joan Cusack played
this quiet WASPish suburban family who were
Tim McVeigh style terrorists . Funny how
there was no uproar over that film by
WASPs everywhere !
Hopefully Fox will not completely go off the deep
end and have Nazis as their villians for the
next season of 24 ! Because as we all know, they are
the only politically correct villians !
I admire Shohreh Aghdashloo for her bold comments,
but had better be careful... given the mentality of
the Islamic culture, she might now be a target for
their wrath.
at February 9, 2005 10:03 AM
It's all well and good to rail against capitulationist Hollywood (they are, after all, not there to make political points but to make money). I think her (and our) greater anger should be directed toward the Administration, which demonstates here and elsewhere the hollowness of its War on Terror. Would that they really were interested in protecting us. Between the horrendous Visa Expresss program, Grover Norquist, the Bush love affair with the Saudis, and their permitting terrorists to remain inside the government, I find myself wondering: Who is the greater enemy? OBL or Bush (not to hyperventilate!)
Posted by: Seymour Paine at February 9, 2005 10:19 AM
Iranian Muslims, particurlarly the women, are generally pro-democracy after living under the mullah-ocracy for the last 25 years...or refusing to return to live under it as may be the case for Ms. Aghdashloo. (One remembers Chris Wallace reporting from Iran shortly after Baghdad fell when an elderly Iranian woman approached him on camera and said the Iranian people would like the US to liberate Iran as well.)
As for the young man, with the name Jonathan, he is probably a Middle East Christian.
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at February 9, 2005 10:38 AM
And while our "Dhimmi-ized" governments are looking
the other way regarding the Coptic family murder
in NJ, look at the things our esteemed governments
do want to criminalize:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050209/ap_on_fe_st/low_riding_pants
You tax dollars at work... the idiots are in
control.
at February 9, 2005 11:04 AM
Who has the ear of the president and others of his administration? I will give you three guesses.
Posted by: epg at February 9, 2005 11:09 AM
Just how many of the enemy are in positions of power in our government? This reminds me of the biblical reference to "strong delusion".
Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 9, 2005 11:57 AM
Kiefer Sutherland and the rest of the Hollywood want to be elitists talk to us like idiots.
Posted by: Freefall at February 9, 2005 12:00 PM
Maybe Ms. Aghdashloo is a apostate but is afraid to say it.Darrell Issa is a christian arab.
Posted by: RED at February 9, 2005 12:01 PM
I saw this the other night and it made my toes curl up in anger!
Freefall is right, they talk to us like simpletons or idiot children.
A blanket statement that "the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism" is absurd on its face.
And this is from Fox, the only network that one might expect would have the stones to tell the truth.
When was the last time you heard of a Muslim terrorist or terrorist wannabe being handed over to the authorities by fellow Muslims?
You know, I bet all those so-called Muslim terrorists and their supporters are really neo-Nazis in disguise. That's the only way I can explain this mystery.
Posted by: Cato the Elder at February 9, 2005 1:46 PM
A crushing disappointment, but PERHAPS the show represents a toe--not yet a foot--in the PC door. PERHAPS this tiny beginning will give the courage to others represent them as they really are.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Posted by: cubed at February 9, 2005 1:53 PM
I watched this recent episode on Monday night but I don't remember Kiefer giving his little speech. I may have headed for a break at that time but perhaps it wasn't shown in Canada - can anyone confirm that?
Posted by: johnb at February 9, 2005 2:50 PM
johnb, it was at the half hour, I nearly missed it because I don't pay a lot of attention to commercials, but I caught most of it. I wanted to throw something at the television. I don't know about Canada (although it was a network PSA).
Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 9, 2005 2:59 PM
I think this campaign will backfire. The more CAIR
and their ilk try to force these contrived
white washing coverup statements, the more people are going to wonder about what they are feeling
so sensitive about, unless they feel guilty about
something.
We need to buy advertizing space and repeat statements CAIR associated people have made in the
past. Starting with the infamous "Islam should be
the highest authority in America, and Islam the only
accepted religion on earth".
at February 9, 2005 3:14 PM
Who owns FOX???
Therein lies the key: Just like CNN degenerated after Al Waleed "invested" 2.2 billion $ in the mother company AOL Time Warner.
Once the Oilmoney finds its way to FOX that's it!
"Arab Terrorism, Islamic Terror"- will be replaced by "insurgents and mujaheddin"
Posted by: Terminator at February 9, 2005 3:51 PM
Carolyn2:
This morning on a Canadian radio show the FOX 24 show was talked about and a member from CAIR was asked about the borderline censorship
tactics they used.
Not only did CAIR deny censoring FOX's right to free-speech and artistic creativity,CAIR also refused to talk about the public comments by Mr.Hooper's views on an Islamic America ruled by Sharia,CAIR said that the anti-Muslim groups like to "Take CAIR's statement out of context".
The anti-CAIR website has factual reports of CAIR's terror connections and Hamas background,the overt lies on the radio only worsens CAIR's image and censoring the Arts is what Islamists did to Theo Van Gogh.
The radio show was hosted by Bill Carroll on CFRB and to forward him some of the news items or contest CAIR's denial of past members being jailed for supporting terrorism the link is below.
Here's the email address to make it quicker
for sending your opinions.
ryan.doyle@cfrb.com
Posted by: ala-sux
at February 9, 2005 8:40 PM
sococm, I'm also hopeful that this will backfire, or at least get more people wondering what Muslims are hiding or feeling guilty about. Afterall, there are no such "apologies" during TV shows and movies that portray other groups as the villain. If these sorts of apologies are made every time Muslims are portrayed as terrorists, it'll seem very suspicious.
Posted by: feralee at February 9, 2005 9:03 PM
The vast majority of American Muslims gave up their right to be offended at the portrayal of Muslims as terrorists when they failed to publicly condemn the September 11 attacks. They should shut up until such a condemnation is heard.
By the way, since Fox has set the precedent, can we now expect James Gandolfini to read a statement emphasizing that not all Italian-Americans are mobsters during the next episode of "The Sopranos?"
Right. Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Mig at February 9, 2005 10:11 PM
"Kiefer Sutherland Repent to Radical Islam"
This souldn't suprise anyone, Sutherland's grandfather (Tommy Douglas) was the father of Canadian socialism
(and, according to the CBC Douglas was voted as "The Greatest Canadian that ever Lived", since I never watch CBC I hadn't heard of the contest so I didn't vote)
at February 9, 2005 10:12 PM
ala-sux, so it didn't run in Canada. I was also wondering if Fox had changed any of the story line or dialog, but according to your link there haven't been any changes. I guess that is a small victory.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 9, 2005 11:03 PM
I was in fact roped into a film in India once which included many big name Indian film stars and caused Muslims to protest all over India. When my scene came, they equipped me with a big white colonial uniform and an old fashioned telephone into which I was to pretend to have a conversation about not being able to stop some Muslim rioting, how much of a cad Mr. Gandhi was, and so forth. At one point I was asked to hold a plate of biscuits and eat them during my scene. I pointed out that unless I was a multi-limbed Hindu God, I would not be able to hold the telephone, hold a plate and eat all at the same time. The star and producer, Kamal Hassan, conceded I had a point.
The film was called Hey Ram (Oh God). About a year later I got it out on video from an Indian shop in Sydney. I imagine a lot of people said 'Oh God' when they saw this film. I remember one memorable scene, supposedly set in the 1940's, where our hero (Kamal) strolls into a club with freaky 70's funk music being played! Amazingly, I had not been left on the cutting room floor. There I was, Timbo Sahib, giving those “blasted ungrateful black cads a jolly good tongue-thrashing” in my best British accent.
In India the film was not received with a riot of applause - it was simply received with a riot, or quite a few riots to be exact. I would have quite understood it if audiences had gone berserk after seeing my grossly deficient acting, but apparently what really upset them was the film's supposed defamation of Mahatma Gandhi, Muslims and Bengali poet Jibanananda Das. In Calcutta, the Congress students' wing, Chhatra Parishad, by way of a protest against the film's content attacked more than one cinema in the south-west of the city. The rioters even went so far as to set fire to the film's hoarding. Amongst other things, the students (mostly Muslims I guess) claimed that the film had a 'vulgar and provocative' scene - not the one with Timbo on the telephone, but a scene involving actress Rani Mukherjee - Kamal Hassan's Bengali wife who got gang raped by a gang of Muslim thugs in the movie.
Down south there was also heaps of trouble. A vigilante gangs were stalking the town, raiding shops that were thought to be selling copies of that film. Traders were so upset that they formed a human chain in Burma Bazaar in Chennai (Madras) to demand some protection and police action. In Mumbai (Bombay) an influential Muslim organisation also protested against Hey Ram, claiming that the Islamic Community were shown in a very poor light.
Anti-Western racism is common in many Indian films, such as the blockbusters, Kuch kuch hota hai (Something Happens, dir. Karan Johar) and Dil to pagal hai (The Heart is Crazy, dir. Yash Chopra, 1997) the heroines are rejected whilst wearing Western clothing and are not courted by the heroes until they don a sari or salwar-kamees. Invariably in any Hindi film featuring a wayward heroine, she will start off in Western clothing and as her character or respectability improves, she will inevitably end up in a more traditional costume. The symbolism is clear. In 95% of all cases when westerners are depicted in Indian films, they are shown as fascists, fools, drunks, stoned hippies or loose women.
Films such as those above, can be regarded as simply disrespectful towards Westerners in the same way that the head-wobbling ‘Oh-gooodness-gracious-meee’ depictions of Indians in some old British comedies were likewise discourteous, however, on occasions Hindi films could (and still can) become overtly racist – for example in the early 70’s one movie depicted a group of foreign hippie thugs dressed in sacred saffron robes. These Nordic Hare-Krishna bikers went around terrorising and raping Indian maidens - off screen of course. Their reign of drug and alcohol-fuelled terror was eventually brought to an end, somewhat predictably, by an All-Indian action hero. At the time of the movie’s release many foreigners had the theme tune of this movie sung to them ‘on every street corner’ as they innocently walked the streets.
Anjan Chowdhury, the Bengali film industry's leading light, was recently quoted as saying: 'The films we make are meant for the poor and the illiterate, the drivers, the fishermen and the labourers. Today 70 per cent of the viewers of commercial flicks [in West Bengal] are poor Bengali Muslims. Go to any hall in Barasat, Ranaghat or any border town and you will find that most of the viewers are poor Muslims. When the best Bengali directors aim to please the most illiterate levels of society, it is little wonder that Calcutta's educated masses are staying at home.’
at February 9, 2005 11:43 PM
Oh, I forgot, I was in another Indian movie that was uncomplimentary to Muslims. It was Abhay, the most expensive Hindi movie ever made. I was in a scene with an English acquaintance, a gutter-mouthed but otherwise amusing Englishman called Tony.
Our scene: We were being held in a mountainous log cabin in Kashmir by terrorists. In walks the hero, shoots the place up and rescues us.
Filming took four days. It was hot and sultry. The snow was merely salt and scenery was cardboard.
Unfortunately, Tony kept on coming out with unscripted affirmations like "F*** off Paki", "you Muslim c***!" etc. which appeared to go unnoticed at the time. (Film making in India is a very spontaneous and ad-hoc affair and I don't think they fully understood his accent and colourful vocabulary.) I think this, along with my wooden acting, was later picked up upon during the final movie editing. We were cut out of the film.
Alas, a classic piece of Indian cinematography lies discarded on a cutting room floor. I had done a lot of Indian film work by then, but I swore that would be the last.
at February 10, 2005 12:27 AM
Every German is a Nazi?
Next time we see a movie about the holocaust I expect an apology like this: "Although 6 million Jews and Gypsies and Christians have been murdered by the Nazis we would like to make it clear that tnot every German is a Nazi..."
Any buyers out there?
at February 10, 2005 6:35 AM
Terminator,
I think it should go more like:
Next time we see a movie about the holocaust I expect an apology like this: "Although 6 million Jews and Gypsies and Christians have been murdered by the Nazis we would like to make it clear that NO German is a Nazi...you paranoid facists!"
Posted by: St James at February 10, 2005 6:59 AM
I think it should go more like:
Next time we see a movie about the holocaust I expect an apology like this: "Although 6 million Jews and Gypsies and Christians have been murdered by the Nazis we would like to make it clear that NO German is a Nazi...you paranoid facists!"
Posted by: St James
And we should add something like this: PS. We want Poland to return the eastern German states and Russia to return East Prussia, and France to return Alsace-Lorraine. Loosing WWI and II doesn't count!
Posted by: Sheik Canuck (swt) at February 10, 2005 8:27 AM
slightly OT
Canadian Islamic group wants Global to match Fox TV's new racial disclaimer
http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=a2a8f0f0-2ece-42cf-8eef-836af0020e7e
Posted by: Sheik Canuck (swt) at February 10, 2005 8:34 AM
I suppose now we will have disclaimers for horror
films too:
"Hello: I'm Professor Ward Churchill. In
my new position as defender of monsters, I'd like
to inform you that the vampires and werewolves you
are seeing in this film are in no way typical of the
vampire or werewolf living next door to you. They
are all peaceful creatures of the night. Their victims were all deserving of their bloody deaths.
I will bring you more such disclaimers, as and when
my busy university schedule permits"
at February 10, 2005 10:20 AM
Re: Sheik Canuk
Tommy Douglas may be Kiefer's grandfather and a founding member of the NDP but socialists like him I can live with (but not neccesarily vote for). He was a fiscally conservative Baptist minister who insisted that Saskatchewan citizens pay health care premiums as a matter of principle. If he was alive today, I think he would take a tougher line on terrorism than anyone else in the party. Shirley Douglas, Kiefer's mother, on the other hand is a certified left wing moonbat who was once arrested for supplying guns to the Black Panthers in the 1960's.
Posted by: johnb at February 10, 2005 3:36 PM
Re: Sheik Canuk
Tommy Douglas may be Kiefer's grandfather and a founding member of the NDP but socialists like him I can live with (but not neccesarily vote for). He was a fiscally conservative Baptist minister who insisted that Saskatchewan citizens pay health care premiums as a matter of principle.
I know all about Mr. Douglas ... I grew up in Saskatchewan... but like most of my friends, I had to leave there to work in Alberta… a direct result of Mr. Douglas and his socialism. Saskatchewan is celebrating its centennial this year, the same as its sister province Alberta. They were created in 1905, at that time they had about the same population, economy, and land area. By 1925 Alberta had fallen far behind Saskatchewan in all respects. Saskatchewan was the third largest province in Canada(with almost a million people) in terms of population, Saskatchewan had the fastest growing economy and Alberta was considered their poor, weak sister. Now, after 60 years of socialism (Douglas was elected in 1944) Saskatchewan’s population still is less than a million and they are the fifth largest in terms of population with a debt of more than 12 billion dollars and high taxes. Alberta on the other has almost four million people, with the fastest growing economy in the country and (their economy is five times larger than Saskatchewan’s economy) no debt and low taxes. (And getting lower every year) What is the main difference between Alberta and Saskatchewan? Socialism. Plain and simple. Saskatchewan has it and Alberta doesn’t. (Please don’t say “But Alberta has all that Oil!! That is why they are rich!!” I work in the business, the oil does not stop at the Alberta/Saskatchewan border. If oil makes you rich, then why is Hong Kong rich and Russia poor?) Saskatchewan is poor because of the decisions that her socialist governments have made, no other reason.
That is the end of my rant, for now.
Posted by: Sheik Canuck (swt) at February 10, 2005 7:41 PM
The CBC survey was a scam,the show wasn't live and internet voting wasn't filtered for repeat voters.
Tommy Douglas was a Evangelical Christian just a Preston Mannings father was and the CCF became
the NDP,too bad Jack Layton want same-gender marriages legal and believes in higher taxes to reward some of the lazy people that want me to pay their rent and education costs.
layton harps about Canada's independecy from the USA but believes the reduction in our Military
will help makes us safer from terrorism since we aren't a threat to other nations. Meanwhile the U.S. guards our coasts and borders so Layton's kids can sleep well at night and have universal healtcare from the savings of not protecting ourselves with Canadian personel.
You gotta love the NDP,Layton wants trans-fats eliminates from food for health reasons yet he won't let Libby Davies talk about it because she's obese and is needed for the Gay marriage debate since she's a professed lesbian.
NDP....we work so you don't have to.
at February 11, 2005 12:18 AM
You gotta love the NDP,Layton wants trans-fats eliminates from food for health reasons yet he won't let Libby Davies talk about it because she's obese and is needed for the Gay marriage debate since she's a professed lesbian.
NDP....we work so you don't have to.
Posted by: ala-sux
LOL.... I will have to remember that slogan, concise and to the point. thanks ala-sux
Posted by: Sheik Canuck (swt) at February 11, 2005 8:35 AM
I just heard the 24 PSA in total on a radio show and the message only spoke of Muslims in America,the language didn't say "Muslims Americans" ,plus the CAIR rep said that since 9/11 the 5 million Muslims in the US have been interrogate and watched.
I find it hard to believe that the FBI questioned every one of the 5 million muslims that include the elderly and children from birth
up to age 10 or so.
Too bad CAIR has to lie in public to continue this charade that Islam means Peace and the 9/11 hijackers weren't American Muslims,boy I feel much better now,so glad it's foreign Muslims that want me dead.
at February 11, 2005 4:33 PM
Re: Sheik Canuk
I'm certainly not a socialist but let's get serious. Do you really believe that oil isn't the difference between Sask. and Alberta? You just wrote that Alberta had the weaker economy until when - oil was discivered? Even then Alberta needed the help of the federal government to market their oil in Canada as cheaper oil was available from Venezuela. BTW, east of the Ottawa River, oil was imported and west of the Ottawa (i.e. Ontario) Alberta oil was mandated. Even then Alberta's economy didn't take off until the OPEC embargo and energy shortage in the 1970's. When the oil market crashed in the 1980's, remember the Alberta bumber sticker "Please Lord let me have another oil boom and I won't piss it away".
The Alberta Conservative government of Getty put Alberta in debt which Klein managed to remove by both cutbacks and a rise in oil revenue.
As for Saskatchewan, they had a reasonably healthy economy until the farm economy went into the crapper (they also had soom oil revenue - minor compared to Alberta). Remember the Grant Devine Conservative government that almost bankrupted Saskatchewan in the 1980's. It was the NDP that followed that balanced the budget (the first government to do so in Canada I believe).
I live in Ontario and I've seen first hand what an idiot socialist govenment can do (remember Bob Rae and the NDP). The big difference with Saskatchewan is that they are farmers and know there is no free lunch and that is reflected in the provincial NDP.
Posted by: johnb at February 11, 2005 7:20 PM
Re: Sheik Canuk
I'm certainly not a socialist but let's get serious. Do you really believe that oil isn't the difference between Sask. and Alberta? You just wrote that Alberta had the weaker economy until when - oil was discivered? Even then Alberta needed the help of the federal government to market their oil in Canada as cheaper oil was available from Venezuela. BTW, east of the Ottawa River, oil was imported and west of the Ottawa (i.e. Ontario) Alberta oil was mandated. Even then Alberta's economy didn't take off until the OPEC embargo and energy shortage in the 1970's. When the oil market crashed in the 1980's, remember the Alberta bumber sticker "Please Lord let me have another oil boom and I won't piss it away".
The Alberta Conservative government of Getty put Alberta in debt which Klein managed to remove by both cutbacks and a rise in oil revenue.
As for Saskatchewan, they had a reasonably healthy economy until the farm economy went into the crapper (they also had soom oil revenue - minor compared to Alberta). Remember the Grant Devine Conservative government that almost bankrupted Saskatchewan in the 1980's. It was the NDP that followed that balanced the budget (the first government to do so in Canada I believe).
I live in Ontario and I've seen first hand what an idiot socialist govenment can do (remember Bob Rae and the NDP). The big difference with Saskatchewan is that they are farmers and know there is no free lunch and that is reflected in the provincial NDP.
Posted by: johnb
As I pointed out in my above post, the oil does NOT stop at the border between Alberta and Saskatchewan. It doesn’t, I know it doesn’t. The fact that Alberta exploits their oil to the greatest effect is the reason oil helps their economy so much and Saskatchewan’s socialist government is incapable of doing so. Do you seriously believe that oil is all that Alberta does? A very narrow and false view of Canada’s most dynamic economy. Although oil is important, it is a smaller part of Alberta’s economy than it was 20 years ago.
Oil was discovered in Alberta before the First World War, the main discovery (Leduc #1) was discovered in 1945. Your point that Alberta oil (and Saskatchewan oil) was subsidized by the feds proves my point. Oil is not why Alberta is rich. Saskatchewan also has the world’s largest deposits of potash and uranium, as well as diamonds, gold, none of which Alberta has. Saskatchewan has as much or more coal, lumber and certainly more and better farmland. This being the case it should have been easy for Saskatchewan to stay far ahead of Alberta, why haven’t they?? Because socialism is incapable of making the correct economic calculations.
Alberta has a much larger farm economy than Saskatchewan, but because they have developed a much deeper, diversified economy, when farming goes down the tubes, it does not matter that much in Alberta. How did they get such a deep economy? By letting the private sector invest their funds in those areas that give the greatest return. Not by throwing money at whatever the socialist flavor of the month is. (E.g. government sponsored daycare.) (Your point about Saskatchewan being farmers is a little outdated, I believe the last numbers I saw showed that there were only 65 thousand farmers left in Saskatchewan, not a very big number)
Again I will point out that if oil is what makes one rich, why is Hong Kong rich and Russia poor? Why is South Korea rich and North Korea desperately poor? Why are resource rich countries all over Africa poor and resource poor countries like Switzerland extremely rich? Minerals in the ground are not “money in the bank” (quote from one of Saskatchewan’s socialist premiers)
In the end, people vote with their feet. Alberta is far larger than Saskatchewan because they have a far better economy. They have a far better economy than Saskatchewan because they allow capital to be invested where it does the most good, according to all the individual actors in the economy, not just some socialist planner in Regina.
at February 13, 2005 3:43 PM
remember the Alberta bumber sticker "Please Lord let me have another oil boom and I won't piss it away".
I more than remember, I had one on my truck, and I didnt' go running to the Federal government whining and crying for some kind of handout like those yahoos in... well... the provinces and businesses I am thinking of shall remain nameless.
it actually said "Please god let there be another oil boom, I promise I won't piss it all away this time."
Posted by: Sheik Canuck (swt) at February 13, 2005 3:50 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)