Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Says Canada Cares Too Much About Liberties
A cheeky writer at Canada's Ottawa Citizen newspaper has written a story about the U.S. State Department's 2002 Patterns of Global Terrorism.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Blame canada! It's their fault
Oh give me a break......the US does not hold jurisdiction over Canada, and they can keep their grubby fingers out of my country, thank you very much. If I want to smoke pot in my own country, if that right has been 'allowed' by my own government, what gives the US the right to interfere in the sovereignity of Canada? F*CK OFF!!
"If it's stupid and it works....it's not stupid."
"Bush says invading Canada only way to free citizenry."
"Bush administration expresses concern about Canada's weapons of mass destruction."
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
You mean I not only get to smoke pot, enjoy less crime, and get free healthcare, I get my civil liberties too!!!!
----
Squirrel
I'm a brit, but things like this make me respect Canada. Particularly after watching Bowling For Columbine (watch it if you haven't).
Of course, SP reduces that respect, as it tells me to hate canada. And they do have funny accents. And flapping heads.
That's all I can say about it. OK, so terrorism claimed 700 lives last year. In Belgium alone (that tiny country you can never find on the map) 1500 people died in car accidents. Not to mention how many died of the flue. So why is such a pathological, marginal fenomenon causing so much panic? Right. Hysteria. That's always a good way to ruin people's rights.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
If we're very very lucky, in 200 years most countries will be like Canada is now. I was going to type a joke here, but I just discovered, I'm serious.
Now government agencies have even stopped pretending that the U.S. is the paragon of freedom.
I have a friend from Canada, who came down to the States for college in part because he was tired of the Canadian government crushing his liberty with excessivlely high taxes etc. Thanfully after 4 years here (and 2 years of Bush) he's learned better -- Americans fondness of liberty is mainly a scam. Too many are just too scared or stupid to care.
(oh I'm not bitter.)
I know that I will sleep much more soundly the day that Ashcroft is forced to clean out his desk.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
There's definately some tension between privacy, political freedoms, law-enforcement and anti-terrorism-measures.
I'm just concerned about the way the US is trying to tell the rest of the world how to handle this tension. Every country for itself should make it's own descision in how to solve these challenges.
A different way isn't allways a worse way
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
I think it was former Prime MInister Pierre Trudeau who used the metaphor of the mouse in bed with the elephant to describe Canada-U.S. relations. In a lot of ways it's a good metaphor.
Canada has to walk a tightrope: on the one hand our economic prosperity as a nation depends on our trade relationship and close economic ties with the U.S. (Canada is the U.S.'s largest trading partner, and vis versa), and certainly Canada's national security is largely tied to that of the U.S. But on the other hand, Canada is a distinct sovereign nation, and it's important to protect our sovereignty, and not become an extension of the U.S. The article mentions the Canadian government's long-standing flirtation with legalizing pot, and not to downplay issues like that [1], there are other, bigger, issues to consider. The current U.S. administration has shown a cavalier attitude towards environmental protection, weakening the EPA and making efforts to open up protected areas in Alaska for oil exploration and exploitation. Canada has been (awkwardly at times) tracing out it's own environmental policy, balancing the need to preserve our unique and precious ecological heritage, while at the same time preserving our resource based economies. It'd be a real shame if that balancing act was thrown out of whack by pressure from south of the border. The situation with freshwater policy is similar, and will perhaps become even more important.
Canada/U.S. relations loom large over Canadian politics, just as the movements of the elephant loom large in the thoughts of the mouse that it's in bed with. So when U.S. officials make "rumblings", the Canadian government can't help but take note.
[1] I'm for it. The war on drugs has been an abject failure, especially as far as pot is concerned
Unfortunately, they do not support attacks on countries, justified by the war on terrorism, based on a combination of manufactured and inadequate evidence.
they'd slaughter the true terrorists and elect a REAL leader. George Shrubya, Rumsfeld, Poindexter the Criminal, and Ollie the crook North would all go under the knife, and other countries would be free of the threat of hostile invasion by a "liberating" force.
Honestly, do Americans really believe that the war in Iraq is more than a sham to bolster a weakling's public image? more than an oil grab? I pity the lot of 'em. Eh.
I really don't understand what's cheeky about this article. It appears to be at least as well referenced and researched as any other 'hard' news story posted here. It doesn't seem to contain any sort of mocking undertones that one would expect from something labelled as cheeky. For something to be cheeky, one would expect something to be at least mildly offensive to some, due to the manner that the facts were presented it.
Isn't it a little bit strange to write something about global terrorism as a single country? How would such a report look like, if it was writte by northcorea? ;)
A little policy issue thrown at the bottom of that article. The U.S. administration is unhappy that marijuana possession in Canada is now a ticketing offense (parking meter sort of thing) instead of a criminal offense. I'm sure someone will have to draw the paralel that's been brought before that the "war on terrorism" has allowed the broadening of police powers which are being used for the "war on drugs". I'm voting Democrat in 2004, and I'm a Libertarian.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, PATRIOT Act, infinite copyright extensions, and last but not least, true terrorism disguised as "liberation of the people." What a jolly surprise.
What's next, mandatory lobotomies to bring the rest of the world into line with their ridiculous regime? Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Wow. Watching the news for the last year and a half made me forget all that. Hey, Bush- remember this? "I, George W. Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Try reading it instead of wiping your ass with it.
It's not fair. We're the ones with these rights guaranteed, and Canadians are the ones getting them. It's not my fault; I voted for the other loser machine politician.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
During the American revolution Canada went one way while the states went the other. Before then they really was no Canada except by the french in what is now Quebec.
Representatives from upper and lower Canada including Ontario were originally part of the continental congress during the American revolution but backed off when the declaration of independance was signed.
It was then when loyalist for England moved north into Canada while freedom loving rebels stayed in the states or moved south from Canada.
How is it that today Canada is more free then the US?
Americans love freedom and credit the revolution but support the president and look at anyone non conformist as unpatrotic. Guess what?
Bush is the one who is unpatrotic. I really hope he is not re-elected. Many Americans are becoming wary of not only his economic record but his horrendous foreign policy. Bush advisors mentioned that he will start his reelection on ground zero this september 11 and run on a foreign policy campaing. I think it will fail. They do not look Bush or Powell twisting everyones and threatening everyone they see fit. I think Powell definetely acted inapropriatly in Syria yesterday.
I was on yahoo messages boards and found many are upset and look at Bush as reckless and a threat to global stability more then anyone else. He really could overreact and create a nuclear war if he is not carefull. Some republicans do not like what is going on with the patriot act and even view bush as more pro-government then Clinton.
http://saveie6.com/
So what a great way to prevent a future terrorist attack. Remove those freedoms so they (theoretically) have no reason to hate us anymore.
(Of course, that is a bunch of crap. "They" hate us now more than ever.)
Americans, look what your lives have change.
It's just amazing that, when you walked into any government related building in DC, you gotta go through a metal detector. All visitors are treated as potential terrorists.
Then it's always a pain to fly. All those hassle, especially if you have the wrong look (I thought being a Chinese Canadian is easier, not so. Security officer in airports like to pick me, because they know for sure there's nothing to look at, just to pass the quota.)
How about Americans visiting other countries? Better pretended to be Canadians.
That's how the terrorists won. Canadians, on the other hand, just refuse to live like that. The first step Canadians do: be friendly to others. Respect the difference, accept other's value. No matter how inefficient or stupid Canadian governments sometimes are, Canadians still can live peacefully.
So, if you have the right to vote in US, exercise your right and tell your government what you think.
A sig is redundant.
It's called Diplomacy!
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Since I don't belive that a single act of terrorism has been enacted by a Canadian citizen or Canadian immigrant against the US since the war of 1812. And the last acts of terrorism in Canada were during the FLQ crisis in the 60's. I don't see how the US has right to talk about Canada and our government policies.
Yea as if all of the pot in the US comes from canada and not MEXICO
How many kids were shot dead in East LA and other inner city "hot spots"?
That is where people live in terror IMVHO
realkiwi
As far as I can tell, the headline is simply the author's interpretation of the State Department's report, not the wording of the US government. In actual point of fact, the State Department seems mainly concerned with police funding (which has nothing to do with civil liberties), low penalties for marijuana possession (also not a civil liberty) and privacy laws. Privacy obviously is a fairly important civil liberty, and clearly the US government is going too far with its anti-terrorist legislation, but the headline is also a tad too alarmist. Indeed, the article does not even specify which privacy related laws the US objects to in particular.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Privacy is not liberty, nor is it a "civil liberty", although it might be a "civil right". A liberty is a right to carry out some type of action without being obstructed by anyone else. Privacy rights restrict the actions of others (to obtain or publish information about you) which makes them claim-rights. So the US complaint about Canadian privacy laws has nothing at all to do with liberty.
This gives a pretty good introduction to the theoretical classification of rights.
The stuff about legalizing dope is of course another matter entirely. I have no idea why American politicians gets so wound up about dope, when most Americans have used it without comming to much harm.
Makes me all fussy and warm inside. NOT.
The current danish goverment is so pro-US it's sickening. They are alienating us from the rest of europa, so fast it's unbelivable.
When Bush tells our Primeminister to jump he goes "I would love to Mr Bush, but as you are currently also fcking me up the arse it's a bit hard for me to comply"...
Well, well, this freedom thing is probably overrated anyway. I mean, how I can reject slavery when I haven't even tried it ...
TC - My Photos..
This is interesting.. the following are some stats I found on crime in Canada and the US (and Sweden, see this page.)
Is it just me or is GW the puppet and Rumsfeild the insane puppet master? Or maybe he's got me fooled and they're both insane.
Strange for a Nation who claim to be the liberty one. The same nation who have for 1st rule : In god we trust. (Yeah !! Wich one ??? I belive they whote this on their dollar bills.) I am proud not to be american.
It can't be as much fiction as that war on Iraq (where are the WMDs again?) or the last US presidential election.
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. That being said, the OP is obviously exploiting the linguistics....
Canada is *clearly* lagging behind in the policing department. Only 118 per 100,000? Pathetic!
I intentionally leave off the YRO stories on slashdot so I don't have to read the political shilling and editorializing that goes on here. I want news for nerds and not activism.
How about instead of me removing "United States" from my news listings, you guys stop posting horse puckey? Deal? Nah.... that'll never happen.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
U.S. Says Canada Cares Too Much About Liberties
Yeah, they should get with the program and be more like the Universal Liberator called USA!
That is the difference between a left and a right government. - A left government promotes state intervention to guarantee a minimum living standard (read taxes) - A right government promotes state intervention to guarantee security (read limit liberties and free speech) I wonder why normal citizens vote right parties. It's happening all around Europe, and it has been happening in the US for a long time. We are selling today the liberties we will need tomorrow, just to get a short term beneffit (some Euros in our pocket)
In 200 years time the 'West' will be where Iraq is now and the Chinese will be saying "I am SO glad that we didnt' get involved".
I am joking, btw.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
Very, very memories. It's been a bad couple of years, hasn't it?
Astonishingly, there is no mention in the report on the United Kingdom of the IRA.
There is a section on the IRA in the appendix on "other Foreign Terrorist Organisations" which notes that the IRA "retains the ability to conduct paramilitary operations" but it accepts that "the IRA reiterated its commitment to the peace process and apologized to the families of what it called "non-combatants" who had been killed or injured by the IRA" without noting that its activities of "kidnappings, punishment beatings, extortion, smuggling, and robberies" are active and continuing.
The report does not mention that two of the leaders of the IRA Army Council were allowed to become Sinn Fein Ministers in the (currently suspended) government of Northern Ireland.
Sinn Feinn, a major political party in Northern Ireland, is acknowledged by everybody except itself as the political wing of the IRA. The name translates into English as "Ourselves Alone" - illuminating its racist basis. Sinn Fein is not mentioned in the report.
Most astonishingly, NORAID's role in fundraising for the IRA within the USA is not mentioned in the report either.
Americans should realise that many British people who are temperamentally and politically inclined to give full support to American foreign policy find it severely compromised by America's sentimental and hypocritical blindness to the IRA threat.
Until the Bush administration goons shut down Slashdot for all the liberal anti-administration conversations going on here, I think you still have your liberties.
Phase one of possible legalization of pot in america is not complete, this being it's legalization for medial purposes. I'm only familar with some aspects of Canada's pot program, like for example legal to grew if you have a license, unlike western america where you can get a perscription for it, but you can't buy it.
But reducing marijuana posession to a ticketable offence is reasonable in my minds eye. Less reason to invade someone's privacy, and don't have extreem cases like the Eggleston in tacoma [http://goldwingtom.com/ourtake/eggleston.html]. Given that some regions do permit it for medical use, there is legit reasons why you might have it about. But how this connects to terrorism is beyond me.
But as far as canada carring more about libraries then we do, they probally do, it's one of the nice things about visiting that nation. How this relates to terrorism is beyond me as... anyone who's only means of communicating an idea is terror is not going to be the type of person who visits a library! If we had trully inteligent terrorists, the body count would be much higher!
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I don't honestly understand why people get so fired up about marijuana being legalized. I think canada has the right idea here.
;)
Disclaimer: I don't actually smoke marijuana...although i use a Mac, so that's close enough
Deaths from tobacco cigarettes in the US, 2002: 400,000
Deaths from Marijuana in the US, 2002: 0.00
Now tell me, which one should be illegal?
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
I guess living in a country that implements laws that limit freedoms in what a consumer can do with their products, allows corporations to run the country like mad, have healthcare funded outside of taxation, go insane when two-thousand people die in one day after a building collapses when the same amount die from various diseases and other mortalities daily, and so on is much better.
Wait...
No. Any country without free healthcare is second world in my book. I hate what the USA does to its poor and I hate that the Chileans copy them.
[For the record, I'm a Canadian currently living in Chile]
0
Number of times Slashdot has implied the US has curtailed civil liberties since 9-11:
1512
Shocking.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
I'm glad that I don't live in the US, but in a relatively free european country.
This is not a joke. I wish it was.
I somehow ran out of them recently.
I don't need a signature.
Right.
Canada has had dick all to do with any military action in the last 100 years.
Learn your history before you start criticising.
You want us to take up arms? How about that time you guys tried to invade us and we burnt your White House down?
Or how about that time that we were busy bombing the crap out of the Nazis while the US was happily being isolationist for 2 years while he tried to take over the world?
Or how about the time that we organized the UN to intervene at the Suez Canal despite England's Security Council veto?
Or how about how we've supplied troops to just about every single UN mission since its inception?
Or wait. Of course none of that happened. It wasn't in the US papers, so it's pretty obvious that Canada doesn't have a military.
I knew a good number of Doctors from my hometown alone (a rather small town in British Columbia) who were working at the MASH units in the first Persian Gulf war who were risking their lives trying to keep UN soldiers alive (including a good number of Americans). But again, it wasn't in any American newspapers so it obviously didn't happen.
Karma: Non-Heinous
I would like to submit a link at snopes.com for your consideration. I am no fan of Bush, but...
For those of you that haven't please please please watch "Bowling for Columbine" my god thats one scary movie.
Does anyone else feel like we're getting to the point in world politics where we have to act, I no longer feel confident that our leaders even remotely consider our best interests.
tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
Actually I've never seen the Bush regime as very serious, rather it's amusing in a perverted kinda way. It's hard to explain... But I get a funny feeling about it. As if they are parodies on themselves, perhaps?
I used to make so many jokes about Canada, and not even think about going there. But, after the past few years of US legislation, I'm now seriously considering moving there. I'd prefer to live in a country where police can't arrest you and keep you in jail for no reason. A good movie to illustrate the good side of Canada is 'Bowling for Columbine'. It's one of the main reasons I'm thinking about moving.
Canada is awesome. =)
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
In the US, police have been using roadblocks to check for seat belt compliance and other violations long before terrorism was a problem. This was brought forth by the insurance lobby, not some ominous threat from terrorists.
If police roadblocks can be coaxed from our system from a mere lobbying group, it stretches the imagination of what 9/11 may have stirred within the government.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Allied forces that invaded Normandy on D-Day infact consisted of Brits, Americans, Australians, AND Canadians
And yes, the US did remain isolated not wanting to help stop Hitler from taking over the world until the war was finally brought to them by Germany's ally, Japan.
The propaganda machines are up and running to prepare for another liberation. Tomorrows headlines: Canadian bacon is people!
Most Americans have never even heard of it.
Second, it doesn't have anything to do with terrorism, really, except that it happened to be mentioned in the same article. I would imagine whoever was writing the State Department report probably just let himself wander a bit when discussing impediments to US-Canadian law enforcement cooperation.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
If Bush actually said that, Bush is a moron. Especially considering that the word entrepreneur is a freakin' french word. Actually, on further review, Bush may just be a moron regardless.
What will happen when terrorists acquire a nuclear weapon.
Nor do you care, because you either want a socialist revolution, or you're naive to think they could never succeed in nuking an American city.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Dear Canadian, freedom loving fellows,
if your are invaded, please feel free to come to "old Europe". There is still plenty of space and many kinds of freedoms to choose from - french, german, etc.
Someone from good old Europe,
Canadians have to be hippocrates to keep benifitting from being the US's neighbor.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I'd like to see some statistics on what percentage of people who smoke pot die in accidents compared to people who dont, until you show some numbers your argument is just opinion. That being said there are some activities that aren't such a good idea when you are high, drunk, etc.... like DRIVING. So don't be so quick to blame the substance, maybe blame the person for being a dumbass. How many deaths each year can be attributed to a persons own fucking stupidity?
My parents pay 51% tax and they make a healthy salery. And I get to year about it every year.
In Canada, it is illegal to say you dislike certain people for certain reasons. They have a ways to go before they can criticize the U.S.
We were in Afghanistan and indirectly with our patrol and defense ships even if we did not officially supported US on the Iraq war we helped much more than any other country (except for Britain). But whatever. ...An occasional "thank you" instead of the usual stab in the back would be appreciated once in a while...
We were in Afghanistan and indirectly with our patrol and defense ships even if we did not officially supported US on the Iraq war we helped much more than any other country (except for Britain). But whatever. Reading this distorted vision make me just happier to live in Canada and please just change your Commander in chief as soon as possible he is an insult to all the great accomplishment of your great nation. (Yes, Canadians can recognize that other nations can also be great.) ...An occasional "thank you" instead of the usual stab in the back would be appreciated once in a while...
An occasional act of courtesy and respect for other nations will be needed first and on many occasion it's us who are still waiting for the thanks. Like when we received all those planes on September 11 because you diverted them all to Canada and that hundreds off US citizens were living for a couple of days in Canadians family's who just decided to take them as guests. At the same time many Canadians where guiving blood and collecting founds for you. I remember that your Commander in chief did not even mentioned Canada in is thanks speech a couple of days latter but did mentioned numerous insignificant country's.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
"If we had trully inteligent terrorists, the body count would be much higher!"
Exactly. Terroism is not about how many people you can wipe out. It is about big noises, large press coverage and fear. One wacko intelligent person could potentially be 100 times more dangerous than 100 meatheads.
Nice. I've rarely read a more concise definition of Canadian patriotism.
"This is the devilish thing about foreign affairs: they are foreign and will not always conform to our whim." - James Reston, New York times, 1968-06-12.
The only problem is that our high level of military ^H^H^H^Hhockey training would probably prevent you from getting to far. Ever get bodychecked by Grandma? Come to Canada!
Back in July 2002, a group of us crossed into Canada at the Blue Waters Bridge in Port Huron/Sarnia for a bachelor's party trip to Toronto. We were pulled over and thoroughly questioned and searched (vehicle, clothes, etc.) on the Canadian side after crossing. However, on the way back in to the US, we were waved on through.
ObSatireWire: Canadian warship seizes tanker in... wait... Canada has a warship?
It's been tried before... didn't work that time either.
It's also awfully reminiscent of a cold-war partitioned Germany. Put up all the razorwire you like (and it would be a hell of a good contract to supply it), people will still want the freedom of the West^WNorth.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Why do you believe it would be a nightmare? The Netherlands have a very liberal drug law for several years and there are no border controls at all between Germany and The Netherlands or Belgium and the Netherlands, both of which have much stricter drug laws. I wouldn't say that there are BO problems, but actually the problems have not increased much since The Netherlands liberated their drug policy.
What you tell us is IMHO very symptomatic for USians as of lately. Spread panic (or "FUD") in order to restrict civil rights.
SebastianIn my understanding, evolution happens when a new generation has new traits that give it an advantage. There is an implication that the previous generation dies off. States CAN evolve and the modern western ones might. But evolving means siring new states that are better than what came before.
Developing in the terms of a state means that the existing state gets better (pick your criteria to define better, doesn't matter for the point I'm making). As soon as I realized the distinction, I also realized that most of the west (probably most of the world really, and I'm definitely including but not singling out the US here) is either going to 'evolve' or 'develop'. Odds are, an evolutionary process is going to be bloodier. I think the decisions that the public makes and allows to be made on its behalf are going to decide which advancement type is the better analogy.
Anyway, just thinking aloud.
Wow! Times have changed!
In the early 1990-ties, Islam Karimov was a cheap Soviet-style dictator wannabee. But he worked hard, intensive surveillance of pro-democracy workers, rigged elections, and eventually, political assassinations, extensive use of torture, etc., gaining real, dictator power.
Most political dissidents have fled, notably, Mohammad Salih, who ran against Karimov in one of the elections. He was the subject of an assassination attempt, that fortunately failed. Salih is a member of the Erk Democratic Party.
After 9/11, the US has given Karimov all the support he needs to grow from a dictator wannabee to a full Saddam/Hitler-style tyrant. There is hardly any serious democratic opposition left in Uzbekistan. What there is, however, is a bunch of extreme muslim fundamentalists, so, should Karimov loose power, it is not going to be the democratic opposition taking over, it is going to be the religious extremists (which is a development we're unsurprisingly seeing in Iraq too).
When I see Tommy Franks shaking hands with of the worst tyrants on the planet, it makes me wanna puke... It is history repeating itself, it is a reminder that Saddam too was a dictator wannabee before Donald Rumsfeld went to shake hands with him in 1984.
If the US wants to have any credibility whatsoever with the war-for-freedom rhetoric, they should at least stop supporting the worst dictators on the planet.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
You, sir, are an idiot.
Your right on arsenic. You must have read that somewhere.
Modern oil extraction techniques are 'generally' safe. That doesn't mean that every oil company out there uses state of the art technology.
Trust me, they don't---its a question of properly regulating their operations in certain areas to ensure that undue harm isn't caused. I have no idea whats going on in Canada---but I have a fair amount of knowledge of small/medium oil extraction operations.
The war on drugs is a success? Har Har Har-- you must be trolling.
You might like the idea of sentencing 'druggies'. This is stupid, for a number of reasons.
From your failure to demonstrate any sort of indepth knowledge, I'll surmise that your an alcoholic, and have already fried all your neurons.
Maybe you want to bring back prohibition, 'cause that worked out fine and dandy.
Not to mention Tobacco----There is research to suggest that nicotine is the most addictive substance know to man.
But Tobacco gets to be the second largest cash crop of Kentucky. (Obviously another success of the drug war. Black market prices have made Marijuana the LARGEST cash crop of Kentucky. Not only do we have a great deal of property damage/life lost in the OPEN WARFARE between rich growers and heavily armed DEA agents, it has become an artifically huge sector of certain areas of the U.S., driving a significant percentage of domestic transactions into an untaxable, and impossible to regulate industry.) This, of course, is strange, because the street price to potency ratio, in dollars adujsted for inflation, has declined over the years.
Not just Pot. Cocaine. Heroine. Ecstasty. LSD.
Drugs have gotten stronger, and cheaper.
Hey---maybe it is a success---After all, the way the government 'regulates' the controlled substances industry has produced both reductions in cost and increases in quality. It's the American Way, baby---Where there is demand, supply will improve, given free market conditions.
The only problem is we now send 'young punks' to jail. In droves. And pay for court costs, jail fees, and vast law enforcement budget. For commiting a victimless crime.
Beyond that---The Office of National Drug Policy says drug users fund terrorism. Well, guess what, bub-- Why does the black market use money laundering? Why are all those funds untracable and impossible to regulate? And why are there such large profits, anyways?
Prohibition.
[i]Wake up, dumbass.[/i]
If Drug Money goes to terrorism, its the Government's fault. If Drug Money funds innercity, its the Government's fault. If Drug Money kills your son, its the Government's fault.
The DEA has so much as admitted that usage rates continue to increase. Approximately 35% of Americans have tried Marijuana at least once. Extremely high levels of highschoolers consider themselves regular users (this has tapered off slightly since '98, but only because it would have had trouble getting ANY higher).
Hell, nearly every political candidate has had some degree of experimentation with various illegal drugs.
And their children (Bush's daughters, who got caught try to buy ecstasy, trying to buy pharmaceutical opiates, and possession of marijuana; Ashcroft's Nephew, who was GROWING pot, and dealing POUNDS---escaped the manditory minimums of Mississippi (When Ashcroft was state attorney general) because of political pressure)) are ALWALYS high.
Grow up----Not everything is as it should be in the Drug Way. For 60 years now our drug policy has been nonsensical, permitting two drugs, but banning other ones indiscriminately, without any amount of review or common sense. Crimes rates continue to rise, Usage rates continue to rise, billions of dollars are spent, and the industry GROWS.
Even if I thought it was a good idea, the failure of drug prohibition to acheive even minimal success in either detering dealing, reducing usage rates, or decreasing avaliability is incre
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
no need for
1.5 ???
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
You have to act fast, however, since Canda is tightening its immigration requirements. A few years ago you could score a 70 on the test and be admitted. Today the threshold is 75 and rising.
Why would you want to immigrate to Canada? Because not only do Canadians have civil liberties, but people in the bottom 55% of incomes have higher after-tax incomes than the bottom 55% of Americans (which is most of us). Indeed, the average after-tax income for the middle class of most industrialized countries is higher than in the United States. (SOURCE: Up From Conservatism by Michael Lind.) Americans in the top 10%-20% are by the most affluent in the world, but the rest of us have fallen behind, since our jobs have gone to India and Taiwan. Not only do we have lower after-tax incomes, but we also have more crime (which is paradoxical since US law enforcement is dangerous and out of control), worse public education, and far costlier health care.
I'm not an American...
...but it always intrigues me the number of Americans who love bagging out 'their govt' like it's a weird-god-like-outer-body-experience-type-entity or something...
I'm not even Canadian...
Intriguing.
I reckon America's tops. I also live in a democracy (Australia). In a democracy, the people are the govt.
Sure, I don't always agree with the Aussie Govt of the day on heaps of issues, but on the whole, I reckon they do a top job. Australia has been built up over 100 years to be a top place to live! And, every two-four years, I get to give our govt their performance appraisal. Pollies are just like us.
They're tops. The system's tops. And if I don't like it, I got the right of protest, so I can change it, or I can move somewhere else if it's really **THAT** bad, which is isn't. It's tops.
Don't be so hard on your country mate, it's a top place.
This Canadian comment in the report is just some temporary pettiness between long term mates. Mates sometimes fight, don't worry. You guys will kiss and make up.
Enjoy your day!
M.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you believe, as you appear to, that critical dissent is essential for securing corrections and improvements to government failings, then why waste time with back-slapping and jingoism?
Do you have some psychological need to see dissent tempered with praise? You don't need to tell a politician when he's done something good -- he will see to it that you and all the other voters are pummeled with that information come re-election time.
I think the people who have the hardest time with dissent are often those who are the least confident in their positions.
Yeah, elect Chomsky and before you know it our taxes could double. Like Sweden, where Volvo, Ericson, and Ikea all grew (in revenue and jobs) over the past three years under such a crushing burden. What suffering!?!
Those stats can be found on the darwin awards website :)
Where I post game reviews, my PSP backgrounds, podca
Seriously, Moore is a nice guy, who just asks tough questions.
I don't see why the Right has to search for 'inaccuracies' and then claim he's worthless because some facts or assumptions may be off.
He's ideas are still correct, and if you are trying to disprove him, you're missing the point of what he does.
But then, if someone challenges your ideas, it's best to try and discredit them or shut them up isn't it?
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Canada's health care system is by no means FREE.
When I send my checque to the government every year, the payment for my health insurance is in there.
When you send your check to the government, regime change and prison building and liberty stripping is in there.
It's a matter of choice for both nations as to what is more important.
If a federal election candidate (in Canada) ran on the platform of lower taxes (ala bush) at the expense of healthcare, they would have their careers abruptly terminated.
If a federal election candidate (in America) ran on the platform of lower taxes at the expense of healthcare, they get elected.
It just illustrates what is important to the populations. We are WILLING to pay taxes to not have to deal directly with (and pay) private health insurance (when it can be afforded in the first place).
just my $.02 CAD (or $.0170 US)
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Remember that to make a fair comparison you need to add Health Insurance to the American tax rate. In Canada health care insurance is rolled into our taxes.
I just want to point out for those of you it may have missed...
Canadian government not falling in line with the American government is one thing.
Canadians not liking the American government is another thing.
Americans not liking the Canadian govenment is yet another thing.
None of the above say that Canadians hate the US. The vast majority of us don't (although, granted, many of us may think of US citizens as a whole as "arrogant").
So please stop with the "Blame Canada" rhetoric. It's been said a billion times, and was only funny about the first four.
Soylens viridis homines es
OK, so the UK plays on the same dirty level as the IRA and caps a few IRA heads. How does this compare to van bombs that kill/maim 100s of people at a time on the mainland ?
just my $.02 CAD (or $.0170 US)
Isn't that a bit optimistic for an exchange rate?
are criticizing other countries for caring "too much about civil liberties" Is this some kind of weird parallel world we live in?
Is anyone else sick of the word "terrorist attack" being tagged onto any tragedy that, pre-2001, would've been called a "politically-motivated attack"?
To describe every act of destruction (against "us", as it seems) as "terrorism" is negating any inspection of why the act took place, politically or otherwise. It's an instant demonification without need for inquiry...and thus, no lessons are learned.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
I swear, this is a true story, and still cracks me up today. My wife and I took our honeymoon through the Canadian Rockies (hiking, 2-day train ride, whale watching, etc). It was really awesome, and everyone was really nice. As the train pulled out of Vancouver, there was graffiti on the overpasses. Just your normal tags, people's names and whatnot. As we started to get to the edge of Vancouver, there was a big graffiti mural on one of the overpasses. What did it say?
"Welcome to Vancouver"
Even the damn graffiti is polite! I still can't believe it, and it cracks me up every time I think of it. I wish I would have gotten a picture of it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Not to mention Vimy Ridge. Or the invasion of Italy during WWII. Or the Korean War. Or this little operation called "Operation Overlord". Or the Battle of Britain. Nope, no Canadian involvement in any major military operations in the past century at all.
sorry that was last week when $2 CAD bought $1.40US.
:-)
I haven't really had a need for $US since they decided I was a persona non grata when I forgot to turn my green card in at age 15 (like I was going to skateboard to Buffalo from Toronto to hand it in
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Well, resisting the temptation to make the usual slew of Candian jokes ... :)
If Canada allowed people to own actual firearms, didn't have even higher tax rates than the US, and didn't force you into crappy socialized medicine, I might consider moving there to avoid the War on Drugs (80s), Save The Children (90s), and The War on Terrorism (00s).
Until then, I'll keep voting Libertarian and writting my congress critters.
I assume all of you bitching about the US don't vote republican or democrat, and thus aren't part of the problem, riiiiight ?
PS: Since I know some Canucks will respond:
1) Your total average tax rates are higher than ours, although it appears that by 2005, that might change.
2) It's about being FORCED into your medical program. That's not freedom.
3) We like guns. You guys used to.
...did Slashdot turn into a political forum?
Oddly enough, you know, the people who're presently bitterly resenting our foreign policy are decrying exactly such a culture. And I'm not just talking about in Iraq, or Syria, or Egypt -- I'm talking about in France and in our closest ally, the UK, too. Out of passing curiosity, had you ever considered actually listening to the nature of the criticisms against us? Or are you completely isolated in your solipsistic echo chamber?
Because we have the freedom to pursue whatever business we like, Americans have gotten very good at supplying what people want... It seems like simple logic to me that any human being would naturally gravitate toward systems that bring greater satisfaction. There, no complex motives required, just basic human behavior.
It's the echo chamber, then... Talk about your "propoganda (sic)." The Arab world hates us because our businesses are so efficient at giving people what they want. It's all just basic human nature.
Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say? Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919? Were the British also exceptionally good at giving the people the satisfaction they wanted? Or does this explanation of yours float in a totally ahistorical fantasy universe where you don't need to deal with comparisons like that?
More to the point: supply us with one clear case in which this has motivated a specific terrorist act. We know a fair amount about the 9/11 hijackers. Were Mohammed Atta's attitudes toward skyscrapers born of this way of thinking you describe? They seem to fit the "corporatism" critique much better, to me.
Please, please, look into how the educated Arab world feels about US foreign policy. There are many, many people out there whose desperate desire is to bring secular, democratized states to the Arab world, but who also seem to understand the sources of terrorism. They do understand the despotic regimes out there -- they seem particularly aware of ones like Egypt, and of the Shah in Iran. You know, the ones the US props up? Like in Pakistan, where Bush W. applauded the military coup that brought Musharraf to power back during the 2000 election? (Those regimes really don't fit into your idea of leaders oppressing the people to preserve the status quo, incidentally. The people resent our backing their leaders. Ever notice that? Ever hear of Anwar Sadat?) Those people aren't living in fantasy la-la land where "The terrorists hate us because we provide the people with more satisfaction." They're saying things about how US foreign policy is counterproductive. You might want to try listening.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
* Or the Justice Department of how many had marijuana in their systems prior to dying or killing others in shootouts/robberies/whatever.
* Or how many spouses/partners killed their partners and/or themselves and had marijuana in their system
* Or how many boaters/jet skiers die each year during accidents and marijuana being in their systems
I'll venture a guess... "not many."
I am sorry to hear about your friend, but its silly to think they commited suicide because of marijuana. Most people who commit suicide do so for valid reasons (or, what they perceive to be valid reasons). Was he/she depressed? The "marijuana" could just have easily been "alocohol" or "Xanax" or nothing at all. I assure you, this person was thinking about suicide before lighting up that joint. Also, people have commited suicide from ODing on myriad perfectly legal substances. What's the solution - banning everything that can be an aid to suicide? Its, unfortunately, all very arbitrary - and easy to blame something like marijuana for the suicide when the real reasons behind it are much more scary and personal.
As for your other friend - again, I am sorry to hear about what happaned... Driving under the influence of drugs (legal and illegal alike) is ill-advised. Also, you are also not supposed to drive shortly after giving blood. *shrugs*
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
...they should consider who supplies most of their water. Just the thought of all that water makes me want to go pee in a reservoir.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Europeean Citizens Says U.S.A. Government Is A Modern Communist Society Under The Cloak Of Democracy Much Like Germany In World War 2.. and we all know what that lead to dont we.. ixxo
The Canadian health care system is equally advanced, at least scientifically. It just lacks the ability to attract the best nurses and doctors away from private facilities in the big U.S. urban centres that can pay substantially more to the best practitioners.
There is a difference. What Canada wants to do is decriminalize pot so that it will be more like a speeding ticket. Also, larger quantities will still be criminal (trafficing will still land you in jail.) The argument is that we (Canadians) do not feel that people that have been caught with small amounts of pot should end up in jail or have criminal records ruining their lives. A kid that smokes a joint at a party shouldn't have his/her entire life stripped away for a stupid mistake. Think of it more like drinking under-age (illegal, but not criminal), you get caught at a high-school party being stupid (who hasn't), your life isn't over.
Pullleeez. Spare me all of this stupidity and backbiting. Here's a solution: let's have the whole world gather in a pit somewhere, say some valley near the dead sea, and just duke it out. Then when whatever blast occurs, it'll all be sorted out and we don't have to cry over who sucks at doing what.
take care.
Once again, prove it. Your silly stats - which vary only marginally from the actual atats in the movie - do not do the job.
Clearly Moore touched a nerve in the US populace, which is what the film was intended to do. Tell me, do you really think they'd give an Academy Award to such a 'blatantly obvious hack job'? Or a 10-minute standing ovation at Cannes?
Oh, right. You hate the French. Never mind.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Robert
sources:
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
How can it be a Democracy when we hand over the decisions to the so called government. I too am an Australian, and if you can't see the fact the many Australians are also unhappy with our government, and express that unhappiness loudly and often, then you are blind to the world around you. The present Australian government is crap, just like in the US. The Australian gov is trying to scrap medicare, in their ever so suttle manner, so that poor people have as much access to medical assitance as they do in the US.
yeah, they are tops, the system is tops. You can always protest, unless they don't want you too, which is what happened in a number of the anti-war protests in this country. You need to apply for a permit to protest, and if they say no, then they have no quarms about sending in the horses, and riot police.
Wake up...
Geez
The British and the Irish are the same race, please try to avoid using words against their meaning.
Technically all homo sapiens are the same race.
I wish people would fucking remember that.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
One wacko intelligent person could potentially be 100 times more dangerous than 100 meatheads.
Hee hee.. I'm removing the tinfoil hat... hee hee
Trolling is a art,
I really don't understand why Americans think we want their tax rate.... but I sure as hell wish someone would copy the tax-deductible mortgage structure ;)
You're such a troll but I will bite anyway.
> Let's not get into WWII. If you think the US
> didn't do dick or spill blood in WWII, then you
> have a real problem.
Yes, you are correct, Americans did die in WW2. Lives lost is not a good thing, no matter when and where it happens. That was not the point though. The point was that the U.S. sat on the sidelines for 2 years while the rest of the "free" world was getting their asses kicked.
> Supplied troops to every single UN mission?
Yes. If you are referring to the current war with Iraq. That is not a UN mission. That's why were are not involved.
> How many of anyone in your hometown gave their
> lives to depose today's hitler?
None. Because there is no equivalent of "Today's Hitler" in the world. Calling Sadam Hitler must be something that CNN came up with. Don't get me wrong, Sadam is bad but he isn't the equivalent of Hitler.
> After all, we deserve it, don't we? You are
> morally superior to us, aren't you?
Nobody said we were morally superior. We have our problems. We make mistakes. We're human. We just don't FORCE our views on everyone else.
> And as for the "riding the backs of the US
> military", I suggest you look within your own
> country for the criticism. Because I've seen it
> come from your own country more than anywhere
> else. From canadian news letters to the
> editors, from canadian news pundits, from
> canadians being interviewed on the street, from
> canadian politicians.
Yes, every country in the world rides the back of the US military. You know why? It's because the U.S. is too busy being the bully of the school yard and sticks it's nose in everything. Someone has to go in and clean up your mess.
Do you really want to know why Canada didn't join your war against Iraq? We all agree that Sadam is bad and should have been removed. There is no argument about that. We didn't join in because we do not want to be a TARGET. That's right, a TARGET. Just think about this in a logical fashion. Look at the possible chain of events.
- We join War on Iraq (tm)
- Terrorists attack Canada (ie Toronto)
- Canada turns to U.S. for support.
- Canada changes privacy policies to help fight "terrorism"
- Canada becomes part of the U.S.
See, you are correct. We ride on the backs of the U.S. military enough as it is and we don't want to. The more we rely on you, the more indebted we are. That's not good.
We're #3, down from the smug #1. We may be #2 or #1 again this year, unless there's more poor people in our country... again... taxes are down..again... tuition will rise 20%... again... My blood boils when I think about the future of Canada.
I'm a brit...
:) ]
[snipped to take this out of context
Why do I keep getting passing thougts of "The (Tony) Blair Witch Project"?
wierd.
Carry on.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Bull. Canada never had nuclear weapons. There were American weapons & bombers stationed in Canada, but there never were Canadian nuclear bombs.
...It wasn't hard to find. The relevant information is near the bottom of the page.
Nope, you're the one who's lacking in history class.
Canada had nuclear missiles on a number of CF-18 hornets (note: CF = 'Canadian forces').
Here's a link.
From http://www.stomptokyo.com/movies/canadian-bacon.ht ml
"Think of your children pledging allegiance to the maple leaf. Mayonnaise on everything. Winter 11 months of the year. Anne Murray -- all day, every day. The Canadians. They walk among us. William Shatner. Michael J. Fox. Monty Hall. Mike Meyers. Alex Trebek. All of them Canadians. All of them here."
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
...is that now Independance day in the US is no longer billed as being about a people's uprising to overthrown an unpopular and (arguably) tyrannical gov't. Somehow the 4th of July has now become a celebration of "America" and "Freedom" and military victories.
These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based on the order I joined.
This is in sharp contrast to some US states where you can go to PRISON for carrying small quantities of marijuana.
I am Canadian and I'm quiet offended by how some Canadians all of a sudden see this subject as a reason to tell the US how better we are at liberties and stuff. Grow up, everyone thinks his country is better than everyone else's.
With the wrong political party in power we could experience the same problems. So please have some respect.
We are not so different and we should be supportive of each others rights to freedoms and liberties. Saying that Canada is better than the US or that US is better than Canada, really doesn't address the subject at all, au contraire, you'll all try to justify some bad law your country have and as a result, it says that you approve of such laws.
Sorry...the correct phrase [and system] is Universal Healthcare.
The current candian military is a pale shadow of the force that fought so well in WW2.
The above is a pretty good example of the appeasement mindset. Unfortunately, on the international stage, this is what Canada has become.
What people HATE is the self-righteousness FUD that your government spews, smearing everyone else in the process.
Here's a good example. Remember Jessica Lynch the female US private that was 'rescued' by US forces from iraqi 'imprisonment'?
The Toronto Star has the real story.
Turns out that there were no troops in the hospital at all. And the hospital staff befriended her. And her injuries were not battle-related, they were more likely from falling off of a truck.
And the hospital tried to deliver her to the US troops, but when the AMBULANCE got within 300 metres of the US troops, they were fired upon.
Once again, the link
Okay; I read that link. It's an interesting read, to be sure. I think the author is missing the point.
References to things like the the missile plant in Littleton are moot; I believe that there is no way of actually knowing what Lockheed Martin builds there, no matter what they - or Moore - says.
As for the Heston speech, the author of that site seems to think that the editing is some kind of trick. Moore did not re-construct sentences, as the author opines (in fact, one might point out that he starts to delve into the same kind of misinformation tactics that he is accusing Moore of); cutting to a picture, then cutting to a different sound byte does not constitute some sort of fraud. It was clear to me that these are snippets, in the way they were presented. Heston said all those things. Doesn't matter where he said them - remember the point of the film. The use of phrases like "my cold dead hands" were used at multiple points in the film, to illustrate a certain mind-set.
I surely think there were things exaggerated in Bowling for Columbine. I live in Toronto - I don't know many people who leave their doors unlocked. (I do know more people who do, to my surprise, after asking some friends when the film came out.)
But you are missing the point of the film. The point about the USA being a gun-crazed, fear-induced culture of what are probably honest people, whom are being manipulated in nasty ways. Do you dispute the gun death stats? That's the real point.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
The government of the US is restricting freedom. They are detaining people without cause. I say we should liberate these americans. They need our help. Fight the Axis of Opression!
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
Many times I have been concerned that so many here just don't understand how perilous a time this is in America.
This discussion appears to have brought the patriots out.
It's a sight I really needed to see. Thank you.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
I think they are just still mad over the war of 1812 when we pushed the Americans so far back... past their 'White House', and burned it...
Adventure City Tours
This country is bullshit. We're powerless to do anything about it, too - admit it! Don't keep denying that the American public has been completely cowed into submission by propaganda and lies.
Our current government is Machiavellian in the sense that it believes it can preach freedom, truth, and justice while practicing tyrrany, duplicity, and corruption.
If we're told that this is the "land of the free" thousands of times, we might believe it. But you and I both know that is NOT TRUE. I am ANGRY! Are you?
I'd prefer to live in a country where police can't arrest you and keep you in jail for no reason.
I'm a proud Canadian, but I'm bound to say, in fairness, that we've had our own share of troubles.
Particularly if you talk to a Quebecer, you will probably get an earfull about the FLQ crisis of October 1970, when Quebec sovereignist terrorists kidnapped (and subsequently killed) a Canadian minister. In response, the federal government invoked the War Measures Act, suspending certain civil liberties, and many people suspected of links to the FLQ were detained without good reason.
Now, in fairness to the Canadian government, the act was invoked at the request of the Quebec government... But I'm sure you'll hear other sides to this story.
Switching back to "proud Canadian" mode, I do feel that our governments (at all levels) have done a pretty good job at balancing security against liberty.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
They were fighting the British in 1812. Until 1867, there WAS no Canada.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
"Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say? Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919? Were the British also exceptionally good at giving the people the satisfaction they wanted? Or does this explanation of yours float in a totally ahistorical fantasy universe where you don't need to deal with comparisons like that?"
Because having a US presense interferes with their own plans. Similiar in some ways to Afghanistan. Alturistic thoughts and motivation really is a rare thing, regardless of what society your talking about.
> The above is a pretty good example of the
> appeasement mindset. Unfortunately, on the
> international stage, this is what Canada has
> become.
I would rather have the leaders of my country being pacifists than war mongers. Odds are that sooner or later we will have to join some war (human nature and all). We just choose not to fight in this one because it does not server our international needs.
Note: Whether or not the war is ethical is a debate left up to scholars that are much more informed than me.
I doubt their prison system accepts transfers from the U.S.
You'll have to wait until 2008, I'm afraid. With responses like those against the Dixie Chicks (I detest them, btw... but they have been very public lately) for speaking their mind, it's all too clear that a great deal of Americans support their oil-baron president, and would re-elect him in a heartbeat. Those same Americans are among the growing number of Republicans who appear to be the majority among the few people who vote. If you want Ass-croft out, I reccomend you vote to impeach.
Schizophrenic.slashdot.orgt .org2 000.slashdot.orgn Wannabe.slashdot.orgt .orgt .org
BleedingHeart.slashdo
Communist.slashdot.org
BitterAboutElection
Anarchist.slashdot.org
America
RightWingConspiracy.slashdo
Missinformed.slashdot.org
Clueless.slashdo
I think this bumper sticker says it all: http://www.wellwhatthe.com
I find it hilarious that you perceive Canadians to be hypocrites for simply staying out of all the bullshit. The United States benefits significantly from our lumber, minorly from our oil, and (although they seem to enjoy slapping tarifs on it) a good deal from our grain.
That doesn't mean we have to, or DO agree with America politically. We support various trade decisions when we agree with them (and in the case of FTAA, some that we don't), and we support actions that we approve of. We also give help, regardless of whether we're in a good mood politically. Remember Gander? Bush certainly doesn't.
Don't call us hypocrites for playing it safe and trying to keep peace while making a modest profit. That's called growing up and playing on the world stage instead of bullying it around to get what you want.
Oddly enough, you know, the people who're presently bitterly resenting our foreign policy are decrying exactly such a culture. And I'm not just talking about in Iraq, or Syria, or Egypt -- I'm talking about in France and in our closest ally, the UK, too.
The response to the French not doing exactly what the US wanted was all sorts of infantile French bashing. Anyway Canada is also usually considered to be a strong ally of the US.
Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say?
It really is very simple, just because they didn't like Saddam Hussein does not mean they want a foreign army in their country.
Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919?
Lebanese Shiites cheered when Israel invaded Lebanon. Then when these soldiers overstayed their welcome they formed themselves into "The Party of God" to get rid of them.
More to the point: supply us with one clear case in which this has motivated a specific terrorist act. We know a fair amount about the 9/11 hijackers.
But also plenty we don't know about these people. Especially given that at least a third of them were using identities stolen from innocent Arabs.
Please, please, look into how the educated Arab world feels about US foreign policy. There are many, many people out there whose desperate desire is to bring secular, democratized states to the Arab world,
In order to have a stable democratic state any such government, its structure, powers and constitution must be decided by people who live there. It simply cannot be done by foreigners or ex-pats who havn't set foot in the country for decades. The best outsiders can do is advise, but this is a job for political historians rather than soldiers.
They do understand the despotic regimes out there -- they seem particularly aware of ones like Egypt, and of the Shah in Iran.
The Shah being especially relevent as a tyrant installed by the US and Britain at the request of the oil industry. Which didn't like the idea of a democratic Iranian government acting in the interests of the Iranian people. The only people in Iran capable of opposing the Shah were the Shiite clerics (Iran having been the home of Shia Islam for several hundred years.)
They're saying things about how US foreign policy is counterproductive.
It rarely appears to be counterproductive towards the corporate lobby who appear to be in the driving seat. Also when it is counterproductive this tends to be long term, long enough that the current US executive can say "we didn't do it".
I, for one, hope you Zapdos come over the border gun in hand to teach us a lesson so that I may be the one who blows you away. Go ahead, loser. Try us.
STFU about slashdot bias.
For the record, being a good Canadian, I'd have to buy a gun first! :)
STFU about slashdot bias.
The complaint I hear from middle-eastern immigrants (Me living near Montreal) is that "how can the US sanction others, and thereby restrict what others may have, whilst the US can't even provide adequately for themselves. It seems to be the US way,Do things our way or we will lead an enforced, US-lead boycott of all goods in and out of your country. Food for Oil my ass. How can anyone believe the US when they say they aren't doing it for the oil, wile all you hear on CNN is "The oil fields are now safe" While I'm on a rant, why does the US want to ban WMD when they have the most? Or has the US dismantled it's entire arsenal of nuclear weapons recently? They are also the country who has in history used the most WMD. Let's just ask the Japanese how they feel about that? It's starting to look as though the US is far more dangerous to world stability than Iraq was. The world isn't blind, we see what is happening. Dubya is a dangerous man!
Man, I wish I had mod points. You make a good point.
I grew up in Canada and still live there, but my dad and wife are both from the States, and I maintain a dual citizenship. What I have noticed is that Americans tend to express strong opinions on various issues and are frank and open about most things. Canadians tend to be a little more reserved and fearful of offending others.
:-)
America was founded by people who broke away from an oppressive regime, which makes Americans tend to explore their opportunities to their fullest potential and seek to change the world. Canada was founded by two groups who had been at each others throats throughout history, which makes us a nation of diplomats, all trying to smoothe over our differences and find common ground and compromise.
I remember attending a debate in Toronto between an evolutionist and a creationist. At the end, when the audience was encouraged to speak up, people kept saying things like "must evolution exclude the hand of God" or "couldn't evolution be a part of God's creation plan"? The evolutionist (who was American) looked at them like they were from another planet, but this is how Canadians tend to think.
That's why this Iraq war was so hard on the national psyche. It's not so much that we were opposed to the war as it was that we couldn't stomach the rift that was forming between the US and its allies. We spent all our energies trying to find a position that would placate the US, France, and others which was, of course, futile.
Anyway, that's just my spin on things as a Canadian, but if you all have different views on the subject, I'm sure I can find some way to accomodate them.
You can freely protest. It's those big groups of anti-war people that block traffic and ambulances (this really happened in San Francisco) that they're trying to avoid.
There's a time and a place.
"Sufferin' succotash."
That was the British Army, not the Canadian Army. Canada didn't exsit as a nation at that time.
At least try to have a better grasp of history than us Americans.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
There appears to be a new French Foreign Forces emerging.
No, they are not associated with the honorable French Foreign Legion.
Frances' policy of sharing foreign diplomatic and military information with foreign organizations/groups appears to imply a French government global political agenda of some sort.
The agenda may be to provide assistance to politico-religious leaders that justify murder in the name of god using the warriors of a false prophet/god to fight and in a Jihad (clandestine war) against an undeclared enemy (EU and US [sounds like in English]).
I am just not sure, ?HUM?, would the French government seek destruction of others more powerful and influential in global culture and international relations? Now that the Russian Bear has been bankrupted, maybe the French government is using the Panda Bear and Ali Bear to destroy the American Eagle, marginalize the Celt/Anglo-American cultures in EU affairs and then France can retry WW-2 with Germany (who ain't got nukes).
THEN: La France, La France, terminé toutes autre! EU knows well the tune ... sing along if you want and enjoy Jerry Lewis
(dubbed or sub-titles) reruns forever, and forever, and forever, even the
French Government will learn what hell can be for the US (dominated by French
controlled Canada [I know very funny]) and the EU dominated by France. The
French Government (not the people) has met the enemy Face to Face
and it is them.
Related Story:
http://www.command-post.org/oped/archives/006 446.html
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination (even for the French).
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
You're obviously a kook.
Sad to say, this scenario is no longer really beyond the imaginable.
Yes, it is, as a matter of fact. Though you may hold paranoid delusions about the government's evil plans, the rest of us realize Saddam needed to go.
And therein lies the source of your frustration, like with most of those so-called anti-war protesters. You're not anti-war or anti-policy. You're just anti-Bush. Get over it. Bush won and will likely win again.
"Sufferin' succotash."
...and take notice of ALL the taxes Canadians pay. I'm surprised it's not even higher than 50% of income.
You are only looking at FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Take a look at your return and see how much income tax additionally goes to the province you live in. That will add a few percent on top of it.
Don't forget the other payroll deductions either. They are essentially taxes too. One deduction is called "Employment Insurance", however just like auto insurance you pay and pay and only get back when you are between jobs (and you meet all qualifications). Not only that--EI takes in WAY more than it pays out and the surplus is "invested". The crooked Canadian federal government has (on more than one occasion) has passed bills and regulations to raid the EI fund to cook the books and achieve a "balanced" budget. The other deduction on your cheque (CPP) is for the pension plan, which has been badly managed and is far from guaranteed to pay out (most analysts say that NOBODY under 50 will EVER receive all their pension contributions after retirement--that is unless they live to be 100).
Now there are municipal taxes. All property owners pay municipal taxes (and that means so do all renters, as landlords pass those costs onto them). Where I live, for a modest home such as mine, that amounts to around C$1500.
Last but not least, there are sales taxes. All Canadians pay at least 7% for the federal GST on damn near everything they buy (it seems only most grocery items are exempt). Add up the tax on all your utility bills, snack foods, booze, auto fuel, clothes--all of it (even YOUR HOUSE and USED ITEMS ON CONSIGNMENT and USED CARS--yes the government recycles those for taxation purposes too!). Even the poorest pay more than they get back in GST rebates. Unless you're from Alberta the province chimes in with their sales tax, bringing up the tally to an average of %15. Don't feel left out Alberta, your province dings you too (though perhaps not to the same extent) with the Healthcare Premium tax (yes--it IS a tax).
And "things aren't enforced nearly as much"?! It's pretty damn hard to avoid paying sales taxes--you can't give the glerk 7-15% less and expect them to be happy. If you owe income tax on your return--try not paying it for awhile. They don't toss you in jail in Canada, but they will garnishee your wages and freeze your bank accounts until they have your money. If you stop paying your Alberta healthcare or municipal taxes for long enough they will send a private collection agency after you and your credit rating will be downgraded. When it comes to getting money to spend...Canadian government most certainly DO care. And they make sure they get a hell of a lot more than 30%.
and the French navy kept Cornwallis' army from retreating, forcing his surrender. You are aware the French fought on the colonists' side in the US Revolutionary War, aren't you? Hardly "their own pointless war".
For one thing we do not have the Patriot ACT like you americans do and all the other legal crap like the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA and god knows what else that the american politicians are cooking up to further strangle the american citizens rights and freedoms.
Also if the UN would have approved the war on Iraq instead of the US going in regardless of the UN's say on the matter, Canada would then likely have sent some support.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Ah yes the American way. Have a family and keep a gun or two in your sock drawer so your young child can find it and blow him or herself away. Uh huh...right.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
I am Canadian and I'm quiet offended by how some Canadians all of a sudden see this subject as a reason to tell the US how better we are at liberties and stuff.
Fellow Canadian here... And I agree.
I think the U.S. currently is stricken with a range of almost intractably difficult social and political troubles. It's shameful that some people seize on the opportunity to laugh at them when they're down.
Myself, I feel heartbroken about the problems in the U.S. I would urge all Americans to act. Take your nation back from your government. Involve yourself as much as you can.
Above all, VOTE. Educate yourself and vote for the party whose ideals you share. Maybe you should even start a new party. Believe in your democratic system and make it work for you. And remember that you are the current world superpower; it behooves you to educate yourselves about world events and foreign policy. The internet is here - use it.
Again, I'm not saying Canada's perfect... but it's clear you're having problems, and you must all work to heal yourselves.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
725 killed worldwide huh ? and what does www.fbi.gov have to say about annual murder statistics in the US ?........ how does that old saying about putting your own house in order go ?
I think the much better question is why humans feel the need to take drugs period? Does a healthy well-adjusted body (mental and physical), really need drugs? Will one live longer, have keener eyesight, gain the ability to calculate PI to the n'th place in one's head, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? It seems that drugs exist to avoid (mask?) our deficiencies. Can't deal with society? Go smoke something. Can't deal with the train wreck that is one's life? Go drink something. People are dying somewere in the world? Go inhale something. Someone said they didn't love you? Go shoot up?
Hmm... clearly you haven't experienced weed or other substances (nothing wrong with that, BTW, it's a personal decision), and hence don't understand the drive behind its (and many other substances) use. Why do people feel the need to jump out of airplanes? Climb mountains? Hangglide? Drive fast cars? Bungee jump? People do things, sometimes, just because they enjoy it. And the same can be said of the various substances people use. The stigma that people who use substances (weed, alcohol, etc) are doing it as an escape is mostly fiction. Yes, *some* people do it for that reason, but from personal experience, I can say that most people consume various substances because it's *enjoyable*.
Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?
Nothing wrong with that, my American friends tell me all the time I should be more like them. Just kidding guys, really! No don't shoot me!
STFU about slashdot bias.
It's interesting that the same people who question our government and its laws are the same people who don't care about freedoms in OTHER countries (Iraq). Our government is a bloated piece of crap that violates the principles on which it was founded. That said, I would rather die than buy into what the liberal media says. Although most people look at the US Gov. critically, they NEVER question the media, as if the media isn't built off of profits.
Something everyone should be forced to read
You mean like the fact that President Madison campaigned on stealing Canadian land and giving it to American farmers?
And yes, it was Canadian land because that was the name of the colony even if we weren't a nation yet.
Also, did you forget that almost every Indian tribed aligned with England against the U.S. invasion?
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Yeah those yankee's might shoot you up the ass ^_^
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
In any way the war on irak and the afterwards apropriation of their oil resources is interfering in their business. OMFG, i forgot you were saving all the poor iraki people!!
It's also interesting to note the way people justify terrorists' motives. We interfere with everybody! Yeah, that means it's okay to blow people up.
You people seem to forget that the no.1 people blower in the world is the USA, i meen, 9/11 was bad, but a mere few thousand people is nothing compared to the massive homicide in Irak, Kosovo, etc. Oh wait but theres a justification: women in irak have their faces covered (!!!) lets go get this sons of bitches!!!!!
WAKE UP!
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
The idea of a government that actually cares about it's citizens rather than seeing them as just revenue would be quite strange and scary to the US.
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
As a Canadian, I have never been able to figure this out. People living outside the USA tend to label any American a Yankee, but when you travel within the country, opinions seem to vary. Some say it's anyone from New England, but within New England, they say no, it's someone from this state or other. I have a feeling that by the time you get to the bottom of it, the only true Yankee is some guy who lived in a small village several hundred years ago. (Well, or a member of a certain baseball team, I suppose.)
Thus explains the natives behaviour...
fascinating!
I've noticed this trend accellerating - getting around legal restrictions by just making up new terms with the same meaning, but claiming that since the word is different, the law doesn't apply.
War doesn't mean "military action against an enemy". Afghanistan prisoners of war are actually "unlawful combatants". The invasion of Iraq is a "liberation", and purely "pre-emptive defense". Nerve gas and bio-weapons are "weapons of mass destruction", even though they kill without the destruction of anything. And the U.S dare not declare any war ever "over" (not even in Afghanistan), lest they be expected to live up to their obligations as the owners of the new territory - it's just the "end of major hostilities" now.
And apparently "losing an election" means something else too now.
What the hell is any official statement supposed to mean now anyway? Bush himself refers to the war against Iraq as a "war" in speeches. What makes it not a war?
A long time ago, world leaders were expected to be honest. That's why such international treaties and convencions never bothered to define all the terms - nobody would deny what they meant, would they?
Well, apparently so...
Ok let's look at the numbers.
Terrorist Attachs:
"The number of terrorist attacks dropped to 199 in 2002 from 355 the previous year. Still, Mr. Powell noted, assaults occurred in every region of the world, claiming 725 lives."
Car Crashes:
"The raw number of people killed in highway crashes last year was up only slightly, from 41,945 in 2000 to 42,116 in 2001" (From www.chase.com)
Hum, maybe we need to look at our priorities! At the end of the day, is lossing all our rights worth saving 725 lives World WIDE! When 42,116 people die each year from people that don't know how to drive!!!
Do you actually believe that? Put it this way, I disagree vehemently with the viewpoints of both Chomsky and Moore (Biafra, I can't speak to, not being as familiar with his views). I consider them both to be self-important blowhards who are more than willing to play fast and loose with the truth in order to push their one-sided and flawed agendas.
That having been said, I firmly believe that they have every right to have their say. I wouldn't want it any other way. So, how is it, exactly, that they have been prevented from expressing their viewpoints? How do they have any less right to their opinion than the Limbaughs and Hestons of the world? I see no evidence of their having been arrested or threatened with any sort of government-backed legal action which occurred as a direct result of their having publicly stated their views.
Also, since when has it been a crime to have a Mac or Linux box, or to like science fiction, or to be a Muslim? Or to possess things that were made in France?
I think that you're confusing popular opinion and preference with the concept of rights. Just because people may be angry with Michael Moore for his comments, and may boycott him, does not prevent him from being able to say these things.
This reminds me of the big speech that Tim Robbins gave about the "chill wind" or whatever, where he referenced McCarthyism and all that good stuff. Well, guess what, Mr. Robbins, you can say whatever you like, but, sorry, despite all your grandstanding, the fact that people decide that you are an ass for saying your piece does not mean that the SS is at your doorstep.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Not only does Canada have a navy, but they are very popular when they pull into American ports. Why? Canadian warships have booze on them!
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Having lived in NYC at the time of 9/11, and hearing the rhetoric that has occurred since then, I have found myself wordering whether we are winning this 'war on terr'a'. Here are the things as I see them.
1. OBL attacked the US because of his dislike of the US presence in Saudi Arabia. Within the last two weeks the US government has issused a press release (reported as news) that the military will leave Saudi Lands.
2. We have attacked two countries, one of which we have created a new government. yet even in that one (Afghanistan), US troops are still being attacked. I thought the war in afghanistan is over.
3. Bin Laden, Dead or Alive.... Anyone remember this? What happened to him? What about Saddam?
4. We now have a bunch of Shiites who dislike us in Iraq, because the US government will not let them have the government THEY want ('Muslim Democracy') but rather what is in 'The US's Best Interest'. Does this make us more or less secure?
5. Patriot Act II. This could deny Linus of all rights that we in the US take for granted. Penguins don't belong at gitmo.
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
Actually, it should techinically be the other way around.
First World Countries = Capitalist (Western) Nations
Second World Countries = Communist or Soviet-Bloc Nations
Third World Countries = The rest of the world, which happens to be very poor
The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world classification is an outdated system of classification that is left over from the cold war, and it really shouldn't be used in a modern context. It was initially meant to describe political structures, but it has come to be interpreted as an economic scale. The problem with that occurs when you try to classify countries like Cuba which could be considered either 2nd world or 3rd world. It is a pretty convenient structure otherwise, but one should know about its origins and keep that in mind.
Sadly, the Progressive Conservatives have won the last two elections in Ontario and continue to gut health care and education.
I decided 4 year ago that I wanted to do computer science in university. At the time tuition for that program was $4000 a year. Now it's $12,000 (plus incidental fees) and it's going to keep rising.
The current leader of the party (Ernie Eves) says "Ontario supports the war on Iraq" despite polls to the contrary. This province is a disaster! Stay away!
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
None of the countries called democracies are actually democracies, they are called republics. To be specific, democratic republics (where the republican representatives are chosen via democratic means) are the formal name for all our systems, US, Canada, Australia, the EU states and others.
Thank your local education establishment, media, and political class for creating the confusion. Wankers.
Baby Bush :) I like that :) I really do
(picture me laughing hysterically at my desk whilst all my coworkers gawk at me in fear and amazement)
Visit us at http://www.iblist.com!
...parrotting a supposedly witty anti-Bush viewpoint and immediately begin modding all who agree with first five words of article as "+5 Insightful", as opposed to actually addressing the concerns which the supposedly unbiased reporter mocks.
[Like how Canada lax immigration policies are a notorious waystop for Al Queda terrorists like the Millenium bomber on their way to American targets.]
Pathetic. I wonder what all those Canadians who have been prosecuted under "hate speech" laws by its "human rights" commission think of all that Canadian Freedom? Anti-gun laws? The freedom to get healthcare when you need it (other than a ticket to the states?)
Now mod this down as flamebait, all you all-too-predictable "freethinkers" who happen to always agree with anyone who expressess any historically revisionist anti-U.S. opinion.
> we don't have to go through checkpoints, don't get
> searched,
When was the last time you flew on an airplane, went inside a government office or courthouse building, or went out to a nightclub?
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
A libertarian government promotes lack of state intervention. So where would they fall?
Canada's health care system is by no means FREE.
When I send my checque to the government every year, the payment for my health insurance is in there.
The thing is, this way the distribution of health benefits ends up closer to the ideal of being based on need instead of wallet size, which results in a happier, healthier society overall.
Not that I like the inefficiencies that tend to seep into anything the government gets involved in, however, there isn't another way around this one, as far as I know. It does mean we have to keep a careful eye on the system to ensure the money goes where it's supposed to, efficiently.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Not quite true. Oil sold to the Irving Refinery in Saint John, NB is purchased at an inflated cost from Irving Oil Bermuda, which in turn purchases it at market cost.
The refinery makes no profit, and Canadian taxes are appropriate as such.
Irving Oil Bermuda (consisting of one desk, one phone, and one semi-retired individual) makes a mint and does not pay any tax, per Bermuda Laws.
Gotta love what private companies can do!
Except that, when you think about it, there is already a fair bit of Canadian Green, BC Bud, etc flowing across the border. Decriminalizing won't necessarily increase production, or exportation (they're currently looking at making use not criminal, which is different from making production legal).
Yes, you'll probably get more Americans crossing the border to grab a toke or two, but hopefully most will be smart about it and also remember not to bring the product back.
Also, keep in mind that Canada has a lower generall legal age for drinking, sex, and many other things (=16 for sex I believe, and =19 for drinking - depending on province). You don't see a lot of people dragging underage girlfriends across the border, or a big impact on American drinking (it could cause some problems with a 20-yr-old having an 18 girlfriend across borders though, I've heard of this happening).
For a summary, check out this list I made outlining some key differences between Canada and the United States.
"With regard to all these initiatives except street video surveillance, Government officials have repeatedly told me privately that pressure from the United States government is a strong motivating factor.
Let me be blunt: "The United States made us do it" cannot be a sufficient or acceptable justification for the Government to intrude on a fundamental right of Canadians.
Canada is a sovereign country.
Throughout our history, there have been important instances where Canada has found it necessary to take a position different from that of the United States on matters involving rights or values. It is surely no exaggeration to say that if our leaders had instead consistently succumbed to U.S. pressures to adopt that country's approaches as our own, there would today be no distinct Canada as we know it.
The same is true with regard to appropriate respect for fundamental rights in the wake of September 11. If the U.S. government is indeed exerting pressure on Canada to take steps that cannot be justified on their merits in accordance with our Canadian values and rights, then Canadians are entitled to expect that the Government will remain steadfast in meeting its responsibilities rather than trample on their rights out of fear of U.S. retaliation. "
"... The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom... But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy -- the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us -- is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being..."
"...The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society like Canada. But that is where we are inexorably headed, if the Government's current initiatives are allowed to proceed. "
I can understand the Dane's uneasiness over Denmark's support of the US invasion, but as a Canadian I must say that I thought sending a submarine to a desert war was a stroke of pure diplomatic genius. No fear of US reprisals for not 'supporting' their 'war on terrorism' and yet the actual support provided was essentially nil.
I am proud that Canada didn't support the invasion of Iraq, but part of me wishes we'd sent a few of our 50 year old SeaKing helicopters to 'help' the Americans so we don't have to worry about the economic fallout of not 'helping' the US invasion.
Personally I score 1 for the Danes.
(BTW, if Denmark sent ground troops as I read your post to suggest please excuse my ignorance, our news tends to focus on US, UK, and Australian troops)
Ontario:
$60,000
= $19,000 in federal tax
= $3,800 in provincial tax
Income tax return = $1,500
Now sit down and figure out how much you pay all year around.
In ontario, your paying GST and PST 15% this is ofcourse triple or more taxation.
The property taxes on the house here in town were $5,000 this year. No I live in a small down, ~28,000 people.
What am I pushing in just paying federal provinal and property taxes so far? $26,300(counting this years return) in taxes just to the goverment at this level. What percentage does that work out to being on $60,000? How much more do you think it would take to push it over 50%? $3,700 in Ontario when I'm 15% tax on almost all my goods it doesn't take long to add up.
And on and on it goes. Canada is the most heavily taxed in the world.
Om, nomnomnom...
Why such high murder rates in the U.S.?
Enter any U.S. home, fish around in the sofa cushions, and you find two or three forgotten sidearms. Look down the heating vent and you'll find a dozen types of ammo. And in Junior's room? Colorful books on precision reloads and bench-rest shooting, as explained by cute teddy bears. I would start to exaggerate, but I don't really have to.
As a Canadian, what I would really like to see are some good Canada jokes.
Thus there is currently no law in canada that makes posessing/smoking pot illegal! yipee! In fact there have now been several pot possesion cases thrown out of court because of this!!!
So, until this new law comes into effect pot is actually legal here. If you don't believe me here's a link to one our our most reputable newspapers: Judge strikes down pot law
US is afraid new Canadian Pot Policy might work and not that as they are warning Canada that it is doomed to fail.
Because if it works then Canada can add itself to the list of Countries that have tried something a little less Draconian than the US way and are doing just fine.
After six decades there is enough of a record to say that the US War on Drugs is a monumental failure and waste of valuable resources.
It is no longer enough to whine "If we just had more money, more resources, more training , more intelligence, " then we could win.
Even Republican's like New Mexico Governor
Bill Richardson are in favour of facing the
obvious.
That was the British Army, not the Canadian Army.
:)
You'd probably like to claim those were British indians fighting on our side.
Canada didn't exsit as a nation at that time.
The war of 1812 was one of the defining moments of the Canadian nation, every bit as much as the British North America Act Act of 1867, "An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick". As you can see, Canada already existed by that time.
Upper Canada was created by the Constitution Act of 1791. If you want to get picky, Canada remained a colony of Britain until the Constitution Act of 1982. So when exactly was the nation of Canada born, according to you?
At least try to have a better grasp of history than us Americans.
Would you like us to aspire to your grammatical ability, as well?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
The only terrorists operating in the USA imo are the ones running the country, iow the lobbying corporations. Criminals are the ones employed by such entities and involved in obvious criminal actions. How do you call employees of such entities who are not involved in criminal actions ? .. Ignorants ? Sheeps ? Dolls ? Workers perhaps...
Personnaly i don't think there's ever going to be a pacific exit to the USA problems. The problem resides within the application of the "Democracy" philosophy and it started wrong.
my 2 cents, not meant as a flame..
Yes, but in all the examples you gave. They all are done in part because there's a "natural high". That's why I said a well-adjusted healthy human. Your body if properly cared for (all around, not just physically), will take care of you.[1]
;) Although, I'd question the comparison between this "natural high" and what, for example, THC induces. They really are vastly different effects, and are enjoyable for different reasons... risk-taking behaviour triggers an endorphine release in the body, which is connected with pleasure. THC (and other chemicals) produce much different (and often pleasurable) effects. So, no, I don't think a "well-adjusted" human body "will take care of you", because it's simply not the same thing.
:)
:).
Artificial stimulents are "Bungee jumping","Hand gliding","Parachuting","Racing", without the accompanying physical danger. Although one shouldn't think drugs are totally risk-free.
Sounds like a *better* deal to me... all the fun, without the inherent physical risk. Sounds great to me!
"Now, I'm sure you'll jump all over this and say "why can't you have a good time without [insert substance here]?" And I would respond with "I can!". That doesn't mean it isn't fun to consume a little weed, for example, from time to time... it's just another way to enjoy life. After all, we have THC receptors in the brain, why not use them?"
I'm sorry but the "If we can, we should" argument has been shown to be a weak one. There's a lot of receptors in the brain. They didn't evolve for the purposes of supporting a drug industry. Nature isn't that vain.
Yes, it was probably a bad choice of wording on my part. The point is that, generally speaking, many recreational drugs are relatively harmless (weed being an excellent example of this), so what's wrong with enjoying them on occasion? I happen to think the "if we can and it's fun and harmless, why not?" argument to be very powerful... the same can be said for basically any pleasureable activity which isn't necessary for human survival. Heck, why bother making music? Dancing? Singing? We don't *need* to do those things, so why bother? Because it's enjoyable! And again, not everyone likes to sing, or dance, which is why it's always a personal decision.
[1] I suspect most aren't aware what a well-adjusted body is. Considering how we physically and mentally abuse (eat wrong, I'm worthless), and allow to be abused (advertisizing, you're a bad person). A lack of reference is understandable.
Well, I'll completely agree with that... although I would argue that, even if you had a perfectly well adjusted mind and body, that doesn't preclude the participation in pleasurable activies. (ooh, how alliterate
Anyway, the gist of my argument is 1) drugs aren't inherently evil. 2) People who use drugs aren't necessarily using it as a "crutch", although some do. 3) Humans naturally partake in pleasure-seeking activities, and the use (and abuse) of drugs is no different, which is why we do it in the first place (to answer your original question, and bring us back on topic
We once supported dictator "x" for purpose "y", so we are obligated to a) look the other way no matter what he does, b) support him for life, because really we were entering into a "lifetime insurance for bad regimes" contract which we are obligated to honor, and c), our national interests are not allowed to change, because that would be unfair to all those regimes we propped up when things were totally different, our government's philosophy was different, and our security interests were different.
That was easy. Next tired canard, please?
Hmmm, I work in the U.S. (so I have to pay U.S. income taxes) but live in Canada, so I have to file Canadian taxes too. My income tax in the U.S. is HIGHER than my Canadian taxes this year (for the first time, mind you) but that's mostly because I don't pay interest on a mortgage in the U.S. However, I do get much more health care for my money in Canada.
I'd say overall, the tax rates are comparable, because Canadian taxes have been going down in recent years.
Sales tax is a different story - in Ontario we are taxed 15% on what we buy. However, goods purchased in Canada are about 20% cheaper than in the U.S. after the exchange. Try this little experiment - go to GM's website and do a "build your own vehicle" wizard, then do the same on GM Canada's website. Then adjust for the exchange rate. When I bought my truck in late 2001, the same truck was 23.5% cheaper in Canada, and they're all built on the same assembly line.
Of course, the U.S. won't let an American import a new vehicle into the U.S. from Canada - it has to be at least 6 months old. Do you think the big 3 automakers had anything to do with that law? They know they can charge Americans more.
Also, I don't know how the hidden manufacturer's taxes compare. Remember that the 7% GST replaced a hidden 13% manufacturer's tax. I don't know if there are any comparable hidden taxes in the U.S.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
As a 'Canuckistani' I can tell you that the biggest trouble we have with the US is the electoral politics. Corporate lobbies are the steering wheel of US government.
.. over and over. THAT is what pisses off Canadians about the US. To see it you only have to take a look at the wheeling and dealing going on right now over business contracts to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq and Afganistan. There have been a few /. articles on this already. Canadians are not as likely to try and blow up the WTC towers as a result, but there are citizens of other nations likewise treated who aren't necessarily intent on pacifistic solutions.
Take the eternally recurrent cycle of tarrifs on Canadian wheat and lumber for example. Every time there is an election, we get this BS from the US government with whom we have a standing FREE TRADE agreement.
Why? Is it because after several arbitrations with the WTO over the years, Canadians have been found to have shady business practices? No. It's because acquiescing to US economic lobbies means votes for the party currently in power and seeking reelection. Canadians suffer unfairly as a result
Of course this is not to mention clueless Buffalo NY citizens driving over the border in >90*F July weather looking for our closest skii resort.
Ok, the land of the free saying we have "too many" liberties? Since when did you become our tutor? Will you come in Canada and topple our regime too? I'm not a big pot fan (never used, never will) but i don't see it being any more dangerous than alcool. Keep your selective freedom to yourselves.
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
But it is also my understanding (from the small number of Canadians i know) that we (the people of the United States) aren't particularly welcome in Canada.
;-) Otherwise, welcome to Canada.
I'm a Canadian. When I meet an American who's moved to Canada, I feel like they're about to start brow-beating me, "well, in America we would do it this way," etc. Some Americans I've met who moved to Canada actually claimed that we had too many immigrants!!! That's a good one!
Honestly, Canadians are just uncomfortable with Americans' self-righteousness and willingness to offend other people at otherwise calm and social events, like dinner. Americans who are polite and considerate with others' feelings are generally very well received.
Just remember, everyone is entitled to an opinion (even in Canada), but I'm entitled to be offended if you start insulting French people (my wife is French), and I might make you feel unwelcome. Don't take is personally. Actually... take is personally. If you're a racist, stay where you belong in the U.S.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
I can't believe some of the outright falsehoods being thrown around here about healthcare in the US.
You didn't say this, but another guy said that the only way you could purchase insurance is through an employer. FALSE!!! I'm not sure about other states, but here in Virginia (a very right-wing state too) anybody can purchase Blue Cross/Blue Shield and they CANNOT BE DENIED. For someone age 35, it's about $114-$200/mo depending on the deductable you choose.
Me? I don't buy it. I follow the other American plan called "rolling the dice". What happens if I roll snake eyes?
I'll tell you what happens. First, I lose almost my whole my life savings. BwwAAAAAAAAAHAAA. I can just hear the bleeding hearts now. But guess what? That's my choice. What happens next? Once I reach a fixed allowance, I go on Medicaid. The fixed allowance permits me to have a small cash savings ($2000 in most parts of the country) and if I own a home I get to keep it--even if it's a $500,000 box mansion in Great Falls, I get to keep it, as long as it's my primary residence.
The care that people receive on Medicaid is higher than what you'd be able to get in many countries, and is on par with what everybody gets in countries with socialized medicine. Yes, sometimes medicaid care is inadquate, but sometimes socialized medicine is inadequate too. After all, Medicaid is socialized medicine. If you want to see what SM would be like in America, visit people on Medicaid. At least I have the opportunity to prevent myself from going there. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of the free lunch. I can become a success, and then I am free from worry, instead of being held back by the confiscatory taxes that would be necessary for socialized medicine.
Do you think defense contractors screw the government? Just wait for socialized medicine. You just know that all those "liberal" CEOs who donate to the Democratic Party are just salivating at the prospect of $600 syringes to match the $600 hammers that the "conservative" CEOs sold to the military.
And as surely as our military can conquer but not control, socialized medicine will be able to cure the simple but not the complicated.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Something occurred to me the other day that lead me to conclude that in the future, the US will be forced to adopted a socialised health care system similar to Canada's. Let me explain.
Ever since its creation, insurance has been a numbers game where the house always wins. When you insure your car, you're gambling that someday you'll have a crash which costs more to fix than you've paid into the system. The insurance companies, on the other hand, gamble that you'll pay more in premiums than you'll cost in claims. Of course, the insurace company always wins. If it is ever any other way, they simply raise your rates. Otherwise, insurance companies would go out of business. It's simple math: they must take in more than they pay out.
When you apply for auto insurance, they guess at how much of a risk you will be. They check to see if you've had any past claims, accidents, speeding tickets, or whatever. They even discriminate based on factors that would be blatantly illegal in any other context. Your sex and age affect your rate. However, in the end, it's all a crap shoot. No one can predict the future. You have complete control over what kind of driver you will be. If you have no speeding tickets, you might very well be an extraordinarily safe and cautious driver. Or, you may just be lucky.
Health insurance is similar. No one knows what they will die from. The insurance companies ask you all sorts of questions to try and find out, and your rates are based on your medical history. But in the end, the healthy ones are subsidising the sick ones.
We are at the threshold of some unstoppable, extraordinary changes in the health insurance industry. Soon, very soon, it will be possible to take a drop of your blood, and generate a very detailed schedule of your future illnesses and eventual doom, assuming you don't crash your car first. They will know with great certainty that you will definitely develop Parkinson's. That will affect your rate.
Those who are destined to be expensively ill will not be able to afford health care, or will be denied coverage completely. The only people who will be able to afford health care will be those who won't need it.
The only fair solution will be to force everyone to subsidize the sick, for the good of society. This will most likely be implemented as a tax of some sort, or maybe simply a component of existing taxes (like in Canada). Canada's system will survive these advances intact, but the US's will require massive evolution, or scores will die. Government is going to have to take over health care. It is extremely unrealistic to expect the insurance companies to be altruistic and generous when it comes to covering the inevitably ill.
It will most certainly be interesting. It will be controversial. Many still cling to the hope that this type of genetic screening will be successfully held at bay through legislation; a hope which runs counter to evolution itself. It is human nature to relentlessly advance science.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
That said, one difference is that Canadian governments do make an actual effort to make things better, usually after a long consultation process - at any given time, there are a large number of Royal Commissions and consultations receiving presentations on any number of subjects, from the new foreign policy consultations going on now, to the copyright reform process (look for my submission on their web page).
I think a part of this is that in Canada, the people in charge of government departments are actually members of Parliament, and therefore elected by people. They have to keep public opinions in mind, even when this conflicts with the Prime Minister's views, or they could lose their job next election even if the government is re-elected. In contrast, the people who run the U.S government don't have to care what anyone thinks, so tend to ignore public interest (the President doesn't really make many decisions - he usually just approves them or not - it's mainly the senior party officials in charge, the same ones one administration to another). Provincial/state governments follow their federal counterparts in structure.
This article is just stirring the pot (no pun intended). No US official has said "Canada cares too much about liberties". Police everywhere have to balance timeliness of action against risks to the innocent. It's ridiculous to think that any two countries would choose to place the balance at the exact same place, and therefore inevitable that police from one country will find fault with police from another, either thinking that they err too much one one side or the other.
The author's points about drug policy being tied to trade policy, resulting in the further erosion of NAFTA and diplomatic relations are well made, but they have nothing to do with the latest report from the US State Department.
The friction over decriminalizing pot reminds me of the debates regarding lotteries here in the US. When one state gets a lottery, the border state always feels pressure to get a lottery, citing revenue lost to the other state. It's plain to see that Canada will become a haven for "drug tourists", resulting in an erosion of prohibition in the US. I strongly doubt that the US would do anything to interfere with Canada's sovereignty (as some have suggested), other than wrecking NAFTA which is pretty much wrecked anyway.
So... this whole article is just an attempt to make more friction between two historic allies. Why? What interest does the author have in destroying the US-Canada relationship?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
British back-stabbers! They were supposed to help us colonials out! Skagway was so ours! Aaaaarrrrgggh!
The Canadian military that fought in WW II was a pale shadow of the force that fought so well in WW I - until the war started, and the country mobilized one of the largest forces in the world.
The Canadian military was kept up for a while during the Cold War, but its end and lack of enemies made a large army that did nothing seem a little useless, so it was cut back (many say too far).
But Canada's always been fairly non-military - the army was nearly non-existant before every war that it was involved in, and built up when needed. Although these days, that sort of build up would take a lot longer than it used to because of the complexity of modern weaponry.
"it doesn't have anything to do with terrorism"
You sure about that? Hemp is a renewable fuel source, and could threaten monopolistic oil profits, especially in the long term. (And I'm not even talking about plastics, fibres, paper, and the thousands of other things hemp is useful for) Now, tell me the current War on Terror has absolutely NOTHING to do with protecting oil interests.
It is in Big Oil's interests to supress hemp cultivation, and Big Oil is everywhere in American decision making.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Apologies to the constitutional monarchies out there. They aren't democracies either so the larger point holds. If you're going to complain about your system not performing to spec, you should know the spec.
Sorry, it's still not a democracy which is what the grandparent was complaining about. Oh well, at least I know the US is a democratic republic.
I know a lot of soldiers from both sides of the border, and they mostly agree on the following:
1) Canadian Army reserves have the same level of training as the American Army regulars
2) Canadian Army regulars have similar level of training as the American Green Berets.
We do not have the numbers, but we do have quality (at least in personnel, equipment-wise...well, let's not go there).
Oh, and yeah, we do have a Special Forces Unit (similar to the Navy Seals).
My 2 cents.
If you cannot travel without identifying yourself then you are being obstructed by others, aren't you?
No more so that you are being obstructed when the government requires you to drive on only one side of the road. It doesn't stop you from doing what you wanted to do (namely drive somewhere) so it doesn't really infringe on your liberty. Of course it becomes a different matter when the requirements imposed become very costly in one way or another. Requiring that you pay a US$10,000 departure tax, or submit to extensive anal probing before you fly, would certainly be an infringment upon your liberty (and in the second case your privacy as well).
(I'm curious, would the Fourth Ammendment be about liberty or about a claim right, by these definitions?)
Typically rights are classified into four types, namely claim-rights, liberties, powers, and immunities. The rights protected by the fourth Amendment are immunities and claim rights.
Let me be blunt: "The United States made us do it" cannot be a sufficient or acceptable justification for the Government to intrude on a fundamental right of Canadians.
It is not unusual for the governments of other countries to blame the US government when they do something that is unpopular. The Japanese government does this all the time. I do not know enough about Canadian politics to say whether it is as common there as it is in Japan, but you might want to consider the possibility.
More importantly Canada and Canadians get privileged access to the US. They can travel to the US more freely and export to the US more freely than the citizens of any other country in the world. However, one result of this is that when the US wants to improve security they now have to make a choice between tightening security on the Canadian border, or asking Canada to tighten its own security. The US has a right to make the request, and Canada does have a choice in the matter.
The right not to be known against our will -- indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves -- is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom...
I think this is profoundly wrong. If you read the classic works on liberty (like say those by Kant or Locke) then you will find barely any mention of privacy. In a genuinely free society the citizens would have no need for anonimity. Not because they have would nothing to hide, but because they would have nothing to fear.
When Pat Robertson called us Soviet Canuckistan, I for one thought "Well, we must be doing something right".
There are some people you just don't want on your side.
Verbing wierds language --Calvin
Or Korea... or Gulf War I (CF-18s conducted air toground sorties)... or Kosovo...
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
Without those "hordes of illegal aliens", you'd be paying $5.00 for a head of lettuce. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Everytime someone loud says:
" see the fact the many Australians are also unhappy with our government"
It makes me laugh!
People will always complain, no matter what you do. Those that earn more, bitch about taxes. Those that don't earn much, bitch about how nobody does enough for them.
We have it pretty damn good in this country, and if the best we can manage is a winge like "gee, I don't like that Johnny Howard guy" rather than, "gee, perhaps we should be physically (as in firebombs) overthrowing our government because it kills people in the streets for not doing the right thing, whatever the hell that might be" then we've got nothing to worry about.
There's nothing worse than a vocal minority claiming everyone thinks like them.
It's too early in the piece for me to comment on the Medicare policy, but just like everyone else, I'll cast my vote accordingly.
Ash
Yup... no involvement... wait a minute... weren't we Canadians fighting in Europe for a couple or three years whilst YOUR president's grandfather was selling the Nazis goods and services? Of course. And he paid a $5 mil fine for it too. But only after the US entered the war after being bombed by the Japanese... and only after the Germans declared war on YOU. Oh yeah... and the Japanese bombed you because you had blockaded their oil and other strategic goods. The same crap in WW I. We were in in 1914, you arrived in 1917. Get real.
They always ripped on Canadian Cops at every chance they had.
Dolemite
_____________________
Save the World! Use a Quote!
Are you referring to provincial taxes in general or just PST? PEI has 10% PST, and they pay PST on the GST for a tax of 17.7%. The other Atlantic provinces pay HST, which is 15%, and in Ontario GST+PST=15%.
In Canada, the govt. regulates drug prices. As a result US drug companies cave in to these anti free market tactics so as not to get bad publicity. Now we find that many of the drugs sold to Canada make it back to the US at reduced prices, undermining the US free market. The US should impose tariffs on drugs sold to Canada to make up for money lost by US drug companies because of socialist Canadian policies. I feel sorry for any company trying to develop life saving drugs in Canada. They're at the mercy of the govt. So much for freedom in Canada.
Vote for Pedro
..from a Canadian.
Well, since you're tracing causality, what country does the U.S. have to thank most for its freedom? France.
Where did the statue of liberty come from? A gift from the people of France. It cost ~$100,000 IIRC.
..don't panic
As with most things, it's very difficult to say when "it" happened. I've a suspicion that it was in the 70s that our rights really started eroding away - but it could have easily happened earlier, but prior to that time social pressures were able to keep the masses in check. Since that time, it seems much of our society and our government has been devoted to maintaining the status quo. I'm not sure I can blame the government for this : it's a chicken and egg problem. The tragedy, though, is that there has yet to emerge a serious counter to this tendency. There are, to be sure, charismatic leaders who are fervently opposing this or that injustice. Hwoever, the opposition is too balkanized, and it is slowly being eaten up piecemeal. One can hope that a counterswing will eventually solidify, but the outlook is not terribly promising.
Seriously, if you feel that way, you need to start a new party and start messing with the elections by participating as a candidate. If you don't, you're being an irresponsible citizen. Granted, it's going to cost time and effort but you have a much better possibility today when there are so many people feeling left out to dry by their elected officials.
Seriously, I can't possibly argue with someone that actually believes that that was staged. Everything's just a big f*cking conspiracy to you people, isn't it? ......
Unbelievable.
And where's your evidence of this conspiracy? Did the UFOs steal it?
Did we attack Iraq based on a set of rules? NO. So what's your point?
Therefore, it's okay for thousands of people to die every year? Am I missing something?
Are you one of those people that thinks we went to war for oil?
I can't believe I'm arguing with this guy.
I'm glad that you've found ways to entertain your thoughts. Meanwhile, maybe you should check this out http://mwhodges.home.att.net/
Sheep!
Something everyone should be forced to read
If the only way to travel is to accept the government knowing, tracking and retaining data on all of my travels, that is "very costly." Did you read the Privacy Commissioner's overview? He details several proposed Canadian laws *applicable to Canadians in Canada, not just Canadians traveling in the US,* which cause significant loss of privacy rights... all but one of which were instigated or requested by the US.
I do not see how one can be free in a society where the government can force you to be known against your will. Again, refering to the overview: aren't the dangers of lost privacy he lists worth fearing (for example, one bad interpretation of your travel habits and you could be blacklisted for years, all without probable cause)? It really worries me that he is warning Canadians against the loss of rights which are already gone in the US.
Of course, I myself have a constitutional right to privacy, but that means never leaving the borders of California.
Let's face it, the country is just too damn big, with too few people. Unless you've travelled to the area, you probably don't know what it's like. Western Canada is clueless about Eastern Canada and vice versa, and they're both clueless about Northern Canada.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Both her and Bryan Adams.
We're really, really sorry about both of them. To be honest, we were hoping your NRA folks would take care of them for us.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Mod the parent up. That is one of the most hilarious and scary things I ever read about the US.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Check out this aerial photo of the staged event
You can also check out any video feed of this event and see that it confirms the above picture. The cameras focused on a small group of people in the immediate foreground of the picture. As soon as the camera pulls back to any degree, the crowd thins out dramatically and immediately. Also, note the sparse crowds in the area behind the statue.
Those "crowds" you saw (and where did you see them, if you distrust the conservative media so much?) were a few dozen supporters of the guy that Bush Co. has chosen to lead Iraq in the new colonial era. A guy that hasn't even been in Iraq in about 50 years and who was convicted of bank fraud in Jordan. Should fit right in with Cheney and the rest of President Junior's "bidness" partners.
First of all, thanks. You're providing a valuable service in illustrating the neocon viewpoint that the Constitution is just ink on a page. I much prefer it when people like yourself just come right out and say the Constitution should be ignored. So, to address your points:
Is the Consitution some kind of Diety or something that cannot be challenged?
No, it can be "challenged". The proper word is "amended". And there is a mechanism to do this:
Article V
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. "
Note that the above paragraph nowhere mentions "just ignore the Constitution and make up whatever shit I want the Constitution to mean".
Do you think that it might be possible that if the framers knew how powerful we turned out to be, they might actually lobby the government to help people?
First of all, the framers were far better aware than you of the danger of a very powerful and very arrogant country, since they'd just fought one for a few years. And they made the Constitution so that our freedoms were meant to be preserved in dark and dangerous times, because that is precisely when our freedoms need such protections.
Second, the framers did intend for government to help people, the American people. That's what they called "the general welfare" and what right wing knuckledraggers call "socialism". It amazes me how Bushies and their syncophants want free and fair elections, universal healthcare, and fully funded public schools in Iraq but fight bitterly over the very idea of such in America. Not having any sense of irony must be essential to being a Republican.
Every day I eat, drink, and sh*t politics. And when I'm done with that, I watch the History channel.
All that proves is some people's ignorance is so collossal that no amount of education can help them. Because if you ate, drank, and shat politics, Jack, you probably would have heard of the tenth amendment by now, which is what the posters above were referring to.
I grew up in a small town, with teachers who made the problems with our government well-known. If anyone knows about the principles to which our government was founded, I'm one of them.
I think if I were you I'd call up those teachers and ask for a refund.
But to speak on behalf of the people who created the constitution at THIS DAY is flat-out disrespectful.
Isn't that what you just did? Projection, the favorite game of right wing monkeys everywhere.
If they were alive now, I suppose they would still support slavery, too?
Um, no. That was handled properly, with an amendment. Maybe you missed this one during your extensive constitutional studies?
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
and no suffrage for women?
Sorry, that one was a properly done constitutional amendment too. Are you s
You pussies only have the option of not defending youerselves because your neighbors do it for you. If Iraq were your neighbor you wouldn't have lasted a day. Smug idiots.
Who has the US ever protected Canada from? When was the last time a nation tried to attack Canada?
I'll tell you -- it was the Fenian Raids (terrorist attacks) from the US back in the mid 1800's. Prior to that, it was the US again, during the War of 1812.
I routinely hear this type of rhetoric -- that the mighty US military machine is "protecting" Canada -- but never can anyone tell me who they're protecting Canada _from_. And indeed, they seem to convienently forget that the US's military forces have _benifitted_ from Canada's contributions to continental and international security -- everything from allowing US cruise missle tests in Canada, to committing troops to the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, to intelligence sharing, to giving the US access to Canadian mutition and military technology test facilities (ref: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/canada-us/agree _e.asp).
So before you spout such rhetoric again, just remember that a) the US hasn't really protected Canada _from_ anybody, and 2) the benifit has always been two-way.
Yaz.
Good one, i should have put that in my original post :)
:)
hany
The United States is no more dangerous than a loaded gun. The problem is, our current administration is like a testosterone-laden teenager waving the thing around to impress girls and get what he wants. But its not that simple.
Did we do this for oil? Well, we certainly import a lot of oil. We would cetrainly feel the pain if the oil market were disrupted. But, also, what do you thinkwould happen fi left Iraq in shambles without fixing things up a bit first? The arab world would hate us, causing more instability nd probably disrupting the oil supply. What if we fixed it up, but paid for it ourselves. Well, we're rich, but we never invest in anythign that indirect and that uncertain. It would be too costly. So what if we used Iraq's ONLY MAJOR REVENUE SOURCE to rebuild Iraq? it's not so far fetched. Some people see one idea as more prominent than the other. The problem is, people usually state an "either/or". The truth is, all of those factors are part of the equation.
Its not the best solution, by far. In fact, my 8-year-old can come up with a better solution to the oil problem, mideast affairs, iraq, civil liberties, etc. But stop painting this as a black and white picture. Take what the left says, then what the right says, then realize that half of what each says is true, and the other half you throw away.
Democracies don't "cap" anybody's head.
Democracies apply the rule of law.
Any group of people terrorized by their goverment or branches of it will defend themselves. Once this dynamic is in place you will get demented people that will find anything justifiable to avert the original repression.
Lets put it this way: the UK would have not done what they did with the partition of Ireland if the emerald Island had been 2000 km away.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sure the jubilent Iraqis look umm... jubilent, but the rest of them just look thirsty, scared and hungry. I was against the war, not because I thought Saddam should be left alone, but because the motives of Bush and his reasons for war were, and still are highly suspect. The WMD still have not been found and the links to global terrorism are still just as tenuous as before. If the initial justification had been to free Iraq, or prevent the human rights abuses I think Bush and Blair would have done a far better job of selling the war, but it wasn't. The whole driving force behind this war was the wave of FUD that Bush seems to be trying to ride all the way to the next election, while at the same time getting all his good corporate buddies a nice kick back in fedral spending. If Bush was acting within the rules perhaps he would be more morally justified in demanding that other countries do so too, however by ignoring the howls of protest from the UN and his former allies he has sent a much more powerful message to the rest of the world. Specifically "We're too good to follow the rules we dictate to the rest of you". Maybe i'd listen to Bush when he complains about WMD in the hands of terrorists if he wasn't spending money investigating nuclear bunker busters, and if rumsfeld hadn't sold them to Saddam in the first place. Perhaps I'd pay more attention to his calls for freedom for all people if he wasn't holding people without charge in cuba. There's even a possibility I'd support his calls for Iraqi soldiers to be tried for war crimes, if he would allow the same rules to be applied to his own soldiers conduct.
It is my belief that America is at a dangerous point in its history. It appears to believe that whatever it does is right, that it can do no wrong, and that if it does wrong then the good outweighs the bad. That may be true, America is on the whole a good country, however it is becoming blind to its faults, and those faults are being allowed to grow. Any attempt to focus on these faults is described as unamerican, or unpatriotic.
There is an old saying, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". Its an idea that America would be well advised to think about, because otherwise you are in danger of becoming a nation of flag wavers who will support whatever the government chooses to do because you still believe the country belongs to the people. Go away and read 1984 again and think how, although it is about communism, it could just as easily be applied to Bushes America.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
This author has nothing better to do than stir the pot. What merit could be had by critisizing Canadian law enforcement when Canada did respond by putting measures in place to make sure that the continent was safe? As a Canadian, I felt horrible to watch the twin towers go down and felt it was part of our responsibility to help to ensure that it was not something that could happen again. This is something a long time ally does for it's fellow allies. American & Canadians as people have always got along (accept for misbehaving Anonymous Cowards), thank gawd that this is the case. I'm glad to be a part of this kind of understanding between nations. If you look around the world, you can see it's rare. Needless to say, the author of this story clearly is only one small voice that can be ignored for the sake of the greater good. Perhaps critisizing positive reactions by separate nations should be praised, rather than picked apart and complained about.
"Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations."
I find this rather frightening.
I generally think that Canada has the right idea, and the United States doesn't. I'm not a Canadian citizen yet because I have faith that the US can change, or at least start moving away from this dangerous spiral toward being a police state. Hoping, praying it could be so...
First of all, I'm glad that you shose the subject line to further prove your point. ALthough, it just told me that you're in fact even more of a dipsh*t than before. Gee, now that you called me MonkeyBoy, I see your point.
Wow, that's a great photo. And that proves.... nothing (Think about it). You honestly think that our government is so well put-together and smart enough to make these massive-scale conspiracies? Do you know what drives conspiracy theorists? Maybe you should look that up... In the meantime, get a life.
I should've known better than to post anything on the Slashdot boards, where nerds like you run your mouth as if you're an all-knowing, supreme being.
Something everyone should be forced to read
Druggies in general should be given enough of their drug of choice that they OD and die.
Think about it. Kill two birds with one stone.
See here:
The beauty of a two party system is that you can convince the "masses" that superficial differences between the two are fundamental and perpetuate the system.
Not to mention that the skills and qualification needed to win a popularity contest are actually quite different from those needed to successfully run a country.
errr sorry... dvorak keyboard. i wont ; they will replace him with even worse hellspawn when the demos is ready.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
thanks for the glib comment. I'll pass it on to the Drug Czar. They might be able to use it. Wonder if it will work for Booze,Cigs,Microsoft and Oil?
a) americans and their women are no longer visibly free
b) the americans pull their troops from saudi soil
c) anyone keen on israel today?
Ydco co a dcee.b m.ooai.v
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Oh but it did burn! Some glorious Canadians (who didn't know they were Canadian and thought they were British (just because they lived in England!)) burnt that sucker down in the name of the Queen in order to keep the evil spread of democracy out of Canada! Hee hee! Wes
"Immature artists borrow. Mature artists steal."
Wes Borg
This has a side effect (benefit?) of having many eyes on ONE system. If we had private insurance, well look south.....
The scams and all-night ambulance rides abound.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
What does this have to do with the topic?
Answer:
Nothing
THANKS,
/. Was already dominated by French Secret Home Intelligence Teams (SHIT, I gotta). US and the French Canadian folks are set in our ways. I am surprised that so many Canadians and US take the Flame-humor serious. Most of US know that we would defend Canadian freedom and independence (with our lives) from any invaders, and many of US think Canadians (except the French ones) would do the same for US, because the Brits, Scots, Irish, Ausies, and Canadians have almost consistently over the past century defend freedom and independence for many others ... So, who ya gonna trust.
I like to think, I have a way with paranoid humorous stories.
I am glad you enjoyed it, I was beginning to worry that
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
"How is it that today Canada is more free then the US?"
It's a matter of perspective. Americans are more narrowly perspected. They ask: "what will be the intended consequences of this action?" Canadians are more broadly perspected. They ask: "what will be the unintended consequences of this action?"
simon
home page
Along these lines of our civil liberties, the heavy handed way our government (US) is trying hard to regulate our own personal behaviors, and the fact that I am royally pissed off at what I consider an injustice, I offer my own recent experience in this WoD.
I am presently on probation for simple posession of marijuana, and simple posession of paraphenalia (my dugout/one-hitter).
Late last year, I was waiting in my car for a friend to come out and give her a lift home. We had planned just a quiet evening, hanging out the rest of the night watching movies. We both smoke.
Along comes a police officer, who decides he doesn't like the way I'm parked, and comes up to check me out.
Skipping over the details of how this progressed, he ended up finding my dugout in my backpack in the car. It was confiscated, and since I was cooperative I was given a citation and sent on my way.
In court, I was put on a year's probation. Part of the terms of the probation, which is non-negotiable, is my drivers license is automatically suspended for no less than 90 days, allowing me a restricted after 30 days... I was also required to attend a drug abuse workshop, which I also had to pay $350 for, on top of my ~$2000 fines and court costs, on top of the $240 I had to pay for probation costs.
I was labelled as a drug addict. It doesn't matter if you smoke a pound a day, or a joint a year, this is automatic too. I'm no more a drug addict than someone who picks up a 6-pak each weekend to watch the game is an alcoholic, but the courts don't allow for this distinction.
Up until the job I had at that time I had been stuck in low paying dead end jobs barely able to support myself. Finally I got into a job I loved, and thoroughly enjoyed. I was a taxi driver. I was finally making a decent living, got myself out of debt, with money left over to actually save something, or even invest later on.
I have since lost my taxi license. It was automatically revoked when my drivers license was suspended. The court costs, probation costs, abuse workshop, have eaten up all of what I had saved and I find myself right back in debt again, and with our current economy, I have been unemployed ever since.
I am all for decriminalization.
There are many who argue that decriminalization will mean people will smoke while driving or be high at work and the like. This is not true. These things are already happening, and would remain illegal even with decriminalization. 'DUI' doesn't go away just because the substance is legal.
Now, all I have to look forward to is more dead-end jobs, and in this current economy, I don't even have that to look forward to right now. The way things look now, my life is in fact over. Last year started out with the feeling things were finally changing for the better for me and I had everything to look forward to. Now, thanks to the courts, and I do blame the court system for this, I have lost everything. The offense, did not deserve this kind of outcome.
My point is, that my 'punishment' went way beyond what I would think is reasonable for the offense comitted. I wasn't driving when I was checked out. I wasn't under the influence, and the officer's report made note of that. Had I been driving under the influence, then suspending my license and revoking my taxi license would have been reasonable and proper. If you're driving while impaired, you deserve to lose your license.
I've always believed in the concept, that in a so called free society, that you should have the right to do anything at all that you wish, so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of your neighbor. Those of you familiar with the Childe Cycle of sci fi books might recognize that from the Dorsai! race.
I wasn't endangering a soul. My smoking affected no-one but myself. I have been careful for 18 years to smoke responsibly, and contrary to what many would have you believe, it is possible to smoke responsibly. Never smoke before work, never drive after smoking, etc.
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum, cogito.
A fine example of Gramscian Hegemenoy in action. But don't forget this aspect,
"Among the many meanings of democracy, the most realistic and concrete one seems to me to be that which connects with the concept of hegemony. In an hegemonic system, there is democracy between the leading group and the groups led to the extent that (the development of the economy and thus) the legislation (that expresses this development) favors the (molecular) transition from the groups led to the leading group."
-Antonio Gramsci-
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
Kinda funny how we never seem to hear the Susan Sarandons of the world complaining about the situation in other parts of the world, isn't it?
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Of course I think Canadian do put the war of 1812 higher than it deserved. It wasn't until I moved from Canada that I started learning that the Americans did better in battles other than the battle of New Orleans. I'd been taught in Canada that was the only battle the Americans won - after the war was technically over. The reality was far more complex but is overlooked or unknown by most Canadians. Not that this is a bad thing, of course. The Plains of Abraham never were good for American troops during the war of 1812 or the earlier invasion during the American revolution.