Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Paul Martin's tenure as Prime Minister? Fuhgetaboutit! | Main | ...and why we love Peter Kent »

Friday, March 10, 2006

Why I love the PGA

Selected results of Sports Illustrated's annual poll of Professional Golfing Association Tour players, as published in the March 13 issue (based on a survey of 70 golfers):

Did the U.S. make a mistake by invading Iraq? Yes, 12%; No, 88%.

Do you have a tattoo? Yes, 5%; No, 95%.

Do you know any pro golfers who have used steroids? Yes, 1%; No, 99%.

Have you seen Brokeback Mountain? Yes, 0%; No, 100%.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on March 10, 2006 in Sports | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8342601bb53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why I love the PGA:

» Insight into the PGA from The Potent Pew
As reported by the Western Standard: Selected results of Sports Illustrateds annual poll of Professional Golfing Association Tour players, as published in the March 13 issue (based on a survey of 70 golfers): Did the U.S. make a mistake by invad... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-03-11 2:21:48 PM

Comments

I have new found respect for the PGA, Makes me want to take up golf.

What a heartwarming poll. I knew there was a reason I had a thing for Anna!

Posted by: ace | 2006-03-10 8:23:28 PM


Are you white? No, 5%; Yes, 95%

Are you a soldier fighting in Iraq or do you have any close relatives fighting? No, 88%; Yes, 12%

Are Golfers well known for their informed opinions on geo-political events? No, 100%, Yes, 0%

Did Brokeback Mountain need PGA Golfers to see the film in order to make it a BOX OFFICE SUCCESS? No, 100%, Yes, 0%

Posted by: Justin rules | 2006-03-10 9:06:10 PM


Brokeback mountain was a boxoffice success??

What is a faliure then??

Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-03-10 9:24:38 PM


Justin, are you doubting the intelligence of golfers? Most of them have university degrees and are therefore more informed than the average person, which unfortunately I can't say for you. And what does being black have to do with having a tatoo as your "poll" implies? Are you saying that all black people have tattoos? Or are you trying to imply that because there aren't hordes of black golfers that somehow their opinions are invalidated? Two of the top ten golfers in the world are black and as a golf fan I'd have to say that more ethicities are represented in large portions on the PGA tour than in any other professional sports league.

As far as a box office success, I'll recall some other mindless movies full of shit (no pun intended Justin) that were box office hits: Farenheit 9/11, Terminator 2, Harry Potter and so on. Just because it's a box office hit does not mean that it's a good film. I can guarantee that most of the people who went to see that movie did so because they love queers. 10% of a population could go see a movie and it would be a box office success and with nearly an entire minority group going to see a movie it is bound to be a hit.

Posted by: Andrew | 2006-03-10 9:26:02 PM


Andrew

I think you missed one important thing. It was not a hit. Despite all of the publicity it recieved it failed even to get to 100M which is not very much for a movie today.

Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-03-10 9:39:13 PM


WinnipegLibertarian,

Brokeback Mountain cost $14m to make. To date it has grossed $138,795,974, almost TEN TIMES its cost. From a business point of view, the film is considered to be a huge success.

In absolute terms, it is currently the 26th top grossing film of the year (based on NA ticket sales) and likely will end up 24th by the time it finishes its theatrical run. This makes it more successful than 85-90% of films released last year. That's a hit by any reasonable definition of the word. Deal with it.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-03-10 10:03:43 PM


The box office results for the unbelievably lame movie "The Longest Yard" so far:

$182 million.

The box results for Justin's favorite movie "Gay Sheepherders in Lust" so far:

$111 million.

Hell, "Brokeback Mountain" wasn't even one of the top 25 earning movies made in 2005. It's 34th as a matter of fact.

http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/index.cgi?top=50&start=2005&finish=2005&order=worldwide&keyword=&links=amazon.com&popups=yes

Posted by: David Crawford | 2006-03-10 10:06:48 PM


David,

(1) WWBO's numbers are not as up to date as those from boxofficemojo, where I got my stats.

(2) Unlike many of the films above it in the list, BBM is still in the theatres. So it's rank for the year is not final. In fact, when WWBO updates it's info, BBM will be up to 27th world-wide, with more ticket sales still to come.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-03-10 10:17:24 PM


Mark

It has gotten hours, and hours of free press on newscasts etc. And still 26th place, might make it to 24th? It was not a horrible bomb or anything, but it has not been a success. Despite the best efforts of the media elite.

Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-03-10 10:31:41 PM


Those guys are good.I mean the PGA,not the gay cowboys eating pudding.

Posted by: wallyj | 2006-03-10 10:58:04 PM


Saving a country from a ruthless dictator who attacked three other countries and supported attacking the United States too - makes a lot of sense.

Tramp stamps, tattoos if you prefer, are ugly. Especially on women. And even a person with 20/20 vision has to be within six feet of the tattoo in order to discern what kind of silly symbol it's supposed to be.

Steroids will give their consumers a stroke in their forties, golfers must be smart enough to know this.

Brokeback Mountain wasn't great, wasn't bad. Wouldn't recommend it to a friend unless they were gay.

Posted by: Infidel | 2006-03-10 11:56:20 PM


Infadel,
Iraqis (especially women and gun owners) were freer and (all) wealthier under Sadam than they are now.

Islamisists have taken over the country from a secular dictator. The country is more Islamic and anti-American than ever. There is little political stability and not much of an economy.

America has replaced an enemy with an enemy while alienating the entire planet.

This is one of great foreign policy screw-ups of the last 70 years, maybe the greatest.

America is a great country with an awful political class. (I guess you could say that about just about every country on earth.)

You have a point about tattoos though.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-03-11 1:56:17 AM


Logan,

And after all of the (meager) overseas box office is totalled up, "Gay Sheepherders in Lust" still won't beat "The Longest Yard".

If you notice, the overseas box office for dramas (or, in the case of "Brokeback Mountain", chick-flick weepy soap operas) is about equal to the US box office.

"Gay Sheepherders in Lust" has run its course in the US and has made about $80 million. Add another $80 for overseas, and the total will be about $160 million. Less than the $180 million made by of one of the crappiest, lamest movies put out by Hollywood in years (The Longest Yard").

Posted by: David Crawford | 2006-03-11 2:05:33 AM


Logan,

Oh yeah, I notice that make an assertion about BBM's box office but you don't provide a link. Listen num-num, this is the internet, the easiest thing in the world to do is to provide a link to source. I provided a link, a link that can manipulated to provide world-wide or domestic (i.e., US) box office receipts. You provided a web-site address that does not support your assertion. You lefties, at least twenty years behind the times.

A picture of Logan and his buddies before they headed out lst night:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Haircut_100.jpg

Posted by: David Crawford | 2006-03-11 2:27:02 AM


Another reason to like the PGA: John Daley fell in love with his current wife during a bottleneck in play, when he saw her in the gallery, beer in hand, jostling in towards the wagon for hungry thirds on a corn-dog.

It's an American fact!

Posted by: EBD | 2006-03-11 3:04:58 AM


I do acknowledge there was a mistake in the case of Irak. But the mistake came from the father of the actual president. He should have invaded Irak right after the Gulf War. By wanting to save the cost of a messy operation, he only delayed the solution of the problem.

Who could tell if Irak had not been invaded, in what kind of mess we would be? It is well proven that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was going to use them. Those weapons are now in Syria. He also was on the verge of building a special type of nukes.

Of course Irak is no easy task. But Afghanistan is not either. It will take time and courage to implement democracy.

Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-03-11 3:16:06 AM


BBM was a huge success The media elite trash who orchestrated its` rise to notoriety , knew exactly what they were doing; piss off middle America in fly over country and in so doing enthrall their disciples , the syncophantic fudge - packing gliterati on both coasts. This piece of ' art ' was not conceived to make money; it was a loss -leader for the gay mafias`; not even hidden anymore , agenda , to search out and destroy any remaining resistance to their smelly objective ; the feminization and subsequent paralisis of the great unwashed.

Posted by: Daveh | 2006-03-11 7:13:57 AM


Mark Logan,
I don't know why you waste your time talking box-office grosses with putzes like Crawford and WL. I thought these so-called conservatives were supposed to be business-savvy (i know, there's ample evidence to the contrary) so why can't these people figure out that a movie that cost $14m and grossed $138m (and counting) is putting a lot more smiles on faces than a movie that cost $82m and grossed $160 million? Especially since a pop-corn movie like the longest yard requires a far bigger promotion and distribution budget than a slow-building art-house flick like BBM?

Oh, right, I remember: it's because they're homophobic nitwits.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-11 7:36:17 AM


That haircut jpg. looked like a bunch of PGA golfers on their way to the movies , probably BBM.
Re the intelligence of PGA golfers , they only have to know one thing , swing mechanics , so don`t look for earth shattering rhetoric beyond the mandatory ; you knows , one hundred and ten percents and , it was a team effort [ oh sorry, that was hockey] . They may have degrees , but probably in basketweaving.

Posted by: Daveh | 2006-03-11 7:45:32 AM


The thought of anal intercourse being a repugnant and offensive practice is not "phobic".

Posted by: noneofyourbusiness | 2006-03-11 8:18:20 AM


Seymour,

How about the 300000 found (so far) in the mass graves in the desert? Were they better off under Sadam? How about the rape and torture rooms? How about the Kurds he gassed with the wmd's you claim were never there? I guess that was a small price to pay to have such a wonderful dictator.

I imagine you assume Kuwait would have been better off under Sadam as well. And who cares while he was in control of that country he was lobbing missiles into Israel, they were just a nuisance I suppose.

From what kind of a sick, twisted, selective, anti-American, anti-war, left wing mind can come these conclusions?

If you ran that poll anywhere in the heartland of the US and Canada, the results would be about the same. I would say from personal experience that 1 in 10 against the war is about right.

Only in the large cities of Canada, the hotbed of liberalism/socialism (the same ones who just blindly voted in over 100 Libs) that are held captive by the obviously biased MSM do the numbers go up. It is no different down south.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-11 8:28:48 AM


NYB . It may not be phobic , but they`d better be taking their probiotics.

Posted by: Daveh | 2006-03-11 8:44:32 AM


"Bare Back Mounting" aside......I love golfers and I don't even golf!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: themaj | 2006-03-11 9:34:40 AM


NYB,
So this is all about sexual behaviours that make you squirm? How are you on fat people having sex? Old people? Ugly people? Is those repugnant and offensive too?
Oh, and is it only boy-on-boy sodomy that's verboten? Or do you also object to hetrosexual anal sex (which, in raw numbers, is a far more common occurence, if we can rely on surveys indicating that something like 40% of women have tried it out.)

Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-11 9:37:27 AM


I'm waiting for the sequel, "the shootout at the KY corral"!

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-11 9:40:56 AM


The return for BBM was indeed a good investment. But when you look at 640 million bucks made by Mel Gibson a few years ago for his flick.....
now that is a return on investment.

Posted by: themaj | 2006-03-11 9:50:39 AM


Sorry to get you excited truewest, I see you have an active imagination, actually, live and let live, whatever turns you on, is my philosophy. I see the point of my post went right over your pointy head though...

DO NOT call me "phobic" if I consider anal intercourse an exceptionally disgusting repugnant act.

Is there anything in my post that limits my repulsion to anal sex between males? Maybe you shouldn't be looking at so much porno on the internet. Maybe you should do some research on the physical damage caused by this practice. Talk to your doctor?

Posted by: noneofyourbusiness | 2006-03-11 10:09:21 AM


Truwest

You call me a conservative?? Look at my name. I hate conservatism. As i have stated before they are nothing but big government stooges.

As for homosexuals i neither fear or hate them, i simply do not relate. But of course contrary to your accusations i have not said a single 'homophobic' thing.

As for the success of brokeback it is true that they made money on it, of course the last movie to not make money was godzilla. And you never did explain how, if it was such a huge success, it is 26th despite all the best efforts of the main stream media elite.

Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-03-11 10:11:09 AM


Does anyone know how this movie was made for 14M?? It has two relatively big name actors, the type who usually make close to that themselves. I guess someone has been working probono.

Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-03-11 10:14:02 AM


Boy I don't know what it is with you people that you can take a post about war and golfers to the poor down-trodden gays and their anal sex.

No matter what a topic is brought up in Canada it somehow descends to racism or homophobia or the worst sin of all ... hurting someone's feelings.

This is not a culture it's a giant freaking high school cafeteria where it's all about self-esteem, what's fair, and feelings.

No logic or reason required to participate. Just a lot of jerk and twitch.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-11 10:25:26 AM


Greetings,
Well said, Duke.
Please be sure to jerk and twitch in a politically correct fashion!
Cheers.

Posted by: knotsmart | 2006-03-11 10:41:24 AM


Sorry duke

just pointing out some facts. But again...some examples of racism or homoophobia would help.

Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-03-11 10:43:25 AM


NYB,
Fair 'nuf. If you've got a problem with butt-sex and not gay men, then I guess you've just got a problem with butt-sex. Lots of folks don't.
WL
Okay, so you're a libertarian. A libertarian who knows squat about the movie business. First, neither lead in BBM makes close to $14m/picture. Second, not getting paid up front doesn't mean they're working for free. Ledger and Gyllenhal are likely in for a share of the gross. Or to put it another way, they're getting paid on the back end. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-11 10:59:49 AM


The financial success of BBM is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Of course an Oscar nominated film will make money. The real issue is that the sexual 'liberty' it promotes deliberately assaults the very nature of what it means to be human. Our race is male and female. We were made for each other. The thousand year quest to make ourselves into something we never were or could ever be is an utter failure. No society can survive such a self-loathing, death-embracing world view.

Posted by: TJ | 2006-03-11 11:05:38 AM


Are you white, middle-class and private school educated? No - 9%, Yes 91%.

Is your family third-generation Republican? No - 13%, Yes - 87%.

Are you homophobic? No - 8%, Yes - 92%?

Do you think women still belong in the kitchen? No - 14%, Yes - 86%.

Does anyone care what golfers think about these issues? No - 99%, Yes - 1%.


Does anyone care what golfers think about these issues? No - 99%, Yes - 1%.

Posted by: Shaky | 2006-03-11 11:22:15 AM


"just pointing out some facts. But again...some examples of racism or homoophobia would help."

================================================

I saw no facts and I still don't get what racism or homphobia has to do with golfers and the war.

Further, how the hell do you suggest it's helpful to bring up these worn out topics in this post?

You lefties are one-trick-ponies. You can't discuss anything without bringing up EVERYTHING you despise about right wing thinking. You tolerate everything and anyone you 'feel' good and okay about no matter how perverse it may seem to others with different views and absolutely condemn (without facts) anything you disagree with. you don't debate, you condemn, throw tantrums and then call for a human rights tribulal to punish your adversaries.

Talk about being unfair!

Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-11 11:24:17 AM


Are Golfers the focus group you want as a "typical citizen?"

Some other questions that were actually asked:

How many cars do you own?

One ...... 9% Two ...... 38% Three ...... 29% Four ...... 13% More ...... 11%

You want an example of close minded behaviour:

Should Michelle Wie continue to play PGA Tour events?

Yes ...... 31% No ...... 69%

If she is good enough to compete with the men on the PGA tour, why not let her?

Finally, read the full methods of the survey:

Some of the players declined to answer certain questions (so the percentages that follow are for respondents only) and others offered, under the cloak of anonymity, answers.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100021411&docId=l:362788181&start=1

Posted by: Shaky | 2006-03-11 11:33:08 AM


Shaky,

Are you the "focus group" of the average Canadian? No -100%, Yes - 0%. Are you the focus group of the average left wing wacko, No - 0%, Yes - 100%. Do I care what you think of these issues? No - 100%, Yes - 0%.

Michelle Wei is a great golfer, but probably wouldn't make the cut on the men's tour, much less finish in the top 10. It's been tried, remember Anika Sorenstam? That's a fact, but I'm sure you will overlook that as well.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-03-11 1:38:08 PM


Duke,
Seems to me the issues you're complaining about, notably all the talk about buttsex, were all implicit in the original post. Kinda a late to be whining about them now.
But that's what you right-wingers do best. Whine. About the MSM, the political system, the academy and, apparently, about how other people have sex. Good lord, you make lefties seem positively stoic by comparison.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-11 2:21:15 PM


After the Left being in charge of government, the media, and schools for the past thirty years, there is plenty to whine about.

Before those of us who simply work to make a better life ourselves and families decided to let you control freaks of nature take over, everything was going pretty well

Now we have poor education, poor health care, no morality whatsoever, tons of fat people, hoardes of what many Canadians see as undesireable immigrants and not much of a military.

We still cannot define our culture and the Quebec horse shit continues. OUr taxes are through the roof and we have more intense regional contempt. Not to mention the apauling way we regard out great neighbor to the south. I could go on, but I think I have made my point.

What you have is a vortex of failed policy and ideas. What we are doing is taking control back and away from you and your never-ending collectivist panderings to the lowest common denominator and your lack good judgement courtesay of moral equivilancy and political correctness. You and your buffoonish philisophies are a disease on human society.

You are losing the culuture now and you hate it.

I'd say we have a case.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-11 3:23:05 PM


right on duke, liberal moonbat social engineering was giving me genuine concern for my children and theirs as well.

Posted by: kelly | 2006-03-11 4:21:32 PM


deep blue,
One, I am no leftist. But being called a leftist by a big government worshiper like yourself is no insult. (Police and military are big government just like welfare. In this sense, you're much closer to the leftists than I.)

Two, I am not anti-American. I love the United States, its people, its culture (especially its gun culture), its businesses, its history, etc. What I hate is its government because it's tyrannical. And hating tyrannical government is about the most American thing there is. Worshiping tyranny, as you do, is about about as anti-American as it gets. Though you may not oppose the U.S. government, you defend actions that contradict its founding principles. For this reason, you are, in principle, one and the same as the anti-globalisation protestors. You worship warfare state oppression, they worship economic oppression. The different is merely in kind.

Three, Sadam was no great dictator. He was evil. My point is that the U.S. made something bad worse. Count the number of Iraqis that have been killed per day since the U.S. invaded vs. under Saddam. I'm guessing they were much lower under Saddam. Further, the U.S. is torturing Iraqis, just as Saddam did (i.e. Abu Garib). Also, the flattening of Fallujah is not unlike the gassing of the Kurds. The U.S. government has left itself no moral ground to stand on.

Americans too were better off when Saddam was in power. Global anti-Americanism is higher than ever since the Iraq invasion. Iraq will lead to more terrorist attacks than it ever rectified.

Four, Israel should have retaliated when Saddam was lobbing missles at them. They didn't because the U.S. wouldn't let them.

Fifth, defending Kuwait against Saddam was a just war. However, this is not a justification to overthrow Saddam. There are too many oppressive governments to overthrow. The U.S. should stick to rooting out terrorists.

Lastly, the U.S. government has created more terrorists than ever by invading Iraq.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-03-11 5:14:24 PM


Won't go see Brokeback,but I have a question wrt it being said to be about "gay cowboys". Anybody ever here about any self respecting "cowboy" HERDING SHEEP?!
Bruce B.

Posted by: Bruce Blondeau | 2006-03-11 6:20:56 PM


Duke,
You says you have a case? A case of what? A case of selective memory? A case of misty-eyed nostalgia for a golden age that never was. A case of delusions of grandeur? (give a conservative 125 seats and he thinks he's dictator-for-life.)

So which golden age would you like to drag us back to, now that you're in charge of the culture? the one where health care was a private matter between a man and his banker and your life span depended on your bank balance? The one where the lack of a social safety net and anti-union law kept the workers quiet and in line (if not necessarily happy)? the one where you could have homosexuals declared dangerous offenders for having consensual sex with other men? the one where Indians and Asians couldn't vote? The one where women died after have their uterus ravaged in illegal abortions? The one where quotas were placed on the number of jews in law and medical schools? The one where Quebec was run by the Duplessis and the Catholic Church and English Canada by guys named McDonald.

Or do you just want to get rid of all this political correctness so you can call people fags and pakis and spearchuckers again and refuse to serve or hire or rent to people because you don't like their kind? Is that what this torrent of verbiage, offered in support of your right to whine, is all about.

Apauling? I'll say its appalling.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-11 6:27:13 PM


All right enough,I am liberal and right ,you are conservative and wrong. If you try to confuse me with facts,you are a ka-ka head too.

Posted by: wallyj | 2006-03-11 6:59:57 PM


YOu must very young truewest. you have no idea what was going on in the fifties. You believe what you were taught in government schools. I was there and it was nothing like you make it out to be.

No one went without medical care because before the government got into the business it was affordable for most people. There has always been social assistance for those who didn't have the money. And people were a lot healthier then.

Non union workers were motivated to upgrade their skills, or find a better job. They were happier back then. If one wanted job security they took a lower paying government job or became teachers. The trade off for lower pay was job security. Not now though we have high pay and security and very low productivity.

Homosexuals were tolerated better than they are now since they have become so obnoxious and public about their digusting sex lives. I don't ever recall anyone making them out to dangerous offenders. Most were smart enough not have gay sex in public so no one actually knew what they were doing and no one cared.

There a lot of people I would deny the vote but not exclusively any racial group. Just stupid people who didn't what they voter for. There should be a minimum test to determine if the person even knows who is running and for what. Many don't. They let mentally retarded people vote nowadays ... what do they know about government. Other than NDP pays more.

I have never been in favour of not letting decide if they wanted to terminate or not. It's their body and their life ... we have no beef there.

I have nothing against Jews. See my blog for evidence of that. However, the reason for limiting their numbers in those professions was because so many of them become doctors and lawyers and they are very smart and motived ... not that there is no restriction they have dominated those professions to the exlusion of many others who were perhaps less smart. I am okay with Jewish doctors and lawyers. Most of them have integrity and do great work. No beef there either.

Regarding Quebec .. they have merely traded one brand of corruption for another. The downside actually is that their numbers are shrinking since so few of them get married and have babies anymore. They don't like the shrinkage either, remember the referendum wheren Parizeau blamed the loss on the immigrants and others who were not "old stock Frenchmen" I remember.

I remember when children were raised by their parents ... one income was all that was needed. Mom was at home. Kids were much better, healthier and well adjusted than they are now. Families were a lot less greedy then too.

You only know what is now. I know what once was. Some things are better now, but the basic things that matter in life and in a society were far superior before Trudeau came along.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-11 7:13:00 PM


Please forgive my horrid spelling and typos. I am in a hurry here ... bye

Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-11 7:16:28 PM


Duke, Hate to break it to you, but I'm not very young. I didn't live through the 1950s, but since most of those who voted for Dief in 1957 are collecting pensions now, that doesn't say much. As for Trudeau, he ushered the state from the bedrooms of the nation more than 35 years ago.
So you say things were better way back when? And I say, for whom? For homosexuals who were "tolerated better" so long as they hid "their disgusting sex lives?" Bet they miss the good ol' days more than anyone. For those who got paid what the boss told they'd be paid? (Actually, the level of unionization was actually higher in the 1950s, but I digress.) For women who got to stay at home with the kids, whether they liked it or not and who were left penniless after a divorce (if they could get a divorce) because all the property was in their husband's name? For Indians and Chinese who couldn't vote and women who died after illegal abortions. Because whatever you may think now, the ugly bits of our past are part and parcel of that golden age. .


As I said, Duke, I'm not that young. I know more than now - I know then. I have friends and relatives who lived through that era. And I have at least a basic understanding of Canadian history. So if you want to sing songs about a golden age, you'd better find yourself another sucker. But don't worry. I'm sure there are plenty of 'em here, gullible and willing to buy all this hoary nostalgia you're pumping out.

Posted by: truewest | 2006-03-11 8:18:07 PM


Levels of unionization have increased since 1950 in canada, it is the U.S. where it is decreasing.

As for your continued insistance that women routinely died from abortions. Sorry that is just plain wrong. Medical records are kept and they list cause of death. The last year that abortions were legal in Canada the total number of women who died from back-alley abortions was ZERO. Even taking into account under-reporting it is clearly the case that it was in no way a regular occourance. That obviously doesn't make it the job of government to regulate medical care or anything. But it is important, if one is going to discuss these issues, that it be intelectually honest, and not based on leftist (or right wing for that matter) propoganda.

Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-03-11 9:16:40 PM


Union participation rates (sorry to let the truth get in the way of a good story truewest)
1940:10%
1950:20%
1989:29%
2002:26%

Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-03-11 9:23:23 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.