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)
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."
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
Canada's weapons of mass destruction.
I agree. Canadians must answer their unleashing of Celine Dion on the free world.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Unfortunately, they do not support attacks on countries, justified by the war on terrorism, based on a combination of manufactured and inadequate evidence.
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
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.
Moreover, Celine Dion is from Quebec!! She's a secret weapon of the French to invade North America!!
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.
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.
Completely wrong. Canada used to have nuclear weapons but realised that the nuclear arm race was an insane business. In 1978, Canada Prime Minister Trudeau stated, at the U.N., that Canada was the "the first nuclear armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons. USA never asked Canada to stop. In fact USA was very pissed off because Canada did not continue to build more weapons with them.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
It can't be as much fiction as that war on Iraq (where are the WMDs again?) or the last US presidential election.
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)
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.
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]
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
Yeah I guess those people being held in Guantanamo Bay and throughout the US without a trial or bail of any kind really isn't curtailing civil liberties.
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"
The propaganda machines are up and running to prepare for another liberation. Tomorrows headlines: Canadian bacon is people!
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
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
It must be nice to live life with blinders on. Are you totally ignorant of what is going on?
Patriot Act made it so that in many cases law enforcement does not have to go to a judge to get a search order. There is an article in the Constitution against illegal search and seizure. This is one right being trampled.
How about the AMERICAN citizens being held in connection with terrorism and not being told what they are being charged with and not being allowed to contact lawyer or family? That is another right being trampled.
There are many other examples, but it is just too depressing to get into it.
The terrorists have won. The goal of terrorism isn't death or property destruction. That is collateral damage. The MAIN goal of terrorism is to inflict FEAR and POLICY CHANGE. Now we have the media and the war-mongering Bush administration keeping everyone afraid as they slowly strip away our liberties.
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?
Are you talking about the hate crimes legislation?
IE. I cannot go and beat up a black or a native american just because they are black or native americans.
or are you talking about some other law?
~ kjrose
First, i live in Canada and i don't know a law like this one. Second, imho, liberty is not inversly proportionnal to the number of laws... but to the way the are enforced.
"Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche
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
Are you talking about the hate crimes legislation?
... sorry, I don't feel like I am any better off than you are. I know it is different because "hate crimes" *may* have effects beyond the actual act, but I still dislike the idea of penalizing people for their thoughts. But that is not what I am talking about.
... ugh). I'm just saying that Canada has its own problems with liberty (I mentioned hate speech, but there are many others, including in the health care business ...), and I frankly couldn't care less about a Canadian's idea to lecture American on relative liberties. Attacking a specific policy is fine, but to make it a "the US is authoritarian, has less liberty, blah blah blah" is nonsensical tripe.
IE. I cannot go and beat up a black or a native american just because they are black or native americans.
No, I am talking about hate SPEECH legislation. American has hate crimes legislation too, though I think it is mostly nonsense. If someone beats me up because I am tall and beats you up because you're Chinese
What I am talking about is that it is illegal for me in Canada, and many European nations, to say I hate you because you are a part of some protected group group. Hate Speech. This is surely a freedom I do not wish to exercise, but to take away such a fundamental component of free expression -- the expression of unpopular ideas -- is chilling.
I am no fan of the ACLU, but I am proud that they recognize that such liberties are some of the most important to protect, because someone else's banned abhorrent view today could be your banned abhorrent view tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow it will be illegal to speak out against government officials, or corporate executives, or spammers.
I am not saying the US is admirable in comparison to Canada, overall. I think it is mostly a wash (except for, perhaps, when you throw the DMCA into the mix
While I share concerns about POTENTIAL infringement of civil liberties. I think a little perspective is in order.
Abraham Lincoln, in my opinion, was one of the greatest U.S. presidents. But he also threw out the writ of habeous corpus. You know... the section of the Constitution prohibiting the government from simply throwing people in jail without a cause.
Northern citizens who criticized Lincoln in the press routinely were thrown in prison. When the U.S. Supreme Court ordered him to stop it, he just ignored the order.
Lincoln is still remembered as one of our greatest presidents.
I understand the fear of infringement of our civil liberties. But "the constitution isn't a suicide pact."
As for our "allies" in Europe and their opinions of this mess. The reality there is, if their own freedoms had depended on their own sense of right and wrong -- and their resolve to confront evil, the French would be speaking German and the Germans would still be goose stepping throughout most of Europe.
The Europeans like to talk of freedom and democracy. But they lack the intestinal fortitude required to do anything about it for those lacking in both of the above.
-dj
- dj
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.
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
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
In the states, freedom and liberty are buzzwords. They don't mean anything. We are less free in the U.S. than in any other industrialized nation, yet we think we have special privileges because our masters tell us we do. Americans are sheep. Is it hard to emigrate to Canada?
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
just my $.02 CAD (or $.0170 US)
Isn't that a bit optimistic for an exchange rate?
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.
To add some more words about the Dutch case ...
The president of France once decided to call the Netherlands a drug country, accusing them of being the source of all drugs coming into France. He happily forgot to mention the harbour of Marseille from which the bulk of French drugs actually comes. But it's always easier to blame someone else instead of fixing one's own problems.
As for borders, don't tell me the US would actually start patrolling every single mile of the Canadian border. Just look at the Norwegian case. Because of the 2,500 kilometers of border they share with Sweden, they are working on joining the Schengen treaty (free circulation between member countries, one visa for all member countries, ...) even though they are not part of the European Union.
Repression doesn't solve the cause of any problem, it just hits the symptoms. If young Americans all smoke joints, it's not because they can go buy it in Canada. Some people who live close to the border might take advantage of it, but for the majority of people, the trip to Canada is too long when you can buy your joint around the corner in Smalltown, USA.
Yes, there is some drug tourism to the Netherlands, but the "drug problem" in the Netherlands is actually much less of a problem than most other European countries.
It's like booze ... if you are not allowed to drink by your parents, the day they are not there, you get totally wasted.
Cheerio,
BrainStop
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.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private.
:)
You appear to have answered you own question. You can say you hate anyone for any reason...this law does not stop that and, as indicated above, actually says it does not apply in that situation.
But you can't publish it. Publish means flyers, leaflets, newspapers (other than letters to the editor), videos etc (and possibly web sites, but this has never been tested...and likely never will since most ISP have their own rules about this ans would teminate your service).
This law is a direct result of the various trials in Toronto of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, who was formerly procecuted under an old law for "knowingly spreading false news". The law is not meant to stiffle free expresion of opinions, but to prevent propoganda that incits violence and hatred against identifiable groups and minorities (or even women, who in Canada are a minority of 52% of the populace). You should have provided a link to the purposes of the act. BTW, even if this was challenged, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would prevail.
BTW, the law you've quoted is the Human Rights Code of the Province of British Columbia from 1996. It does not apply to all of Canada nor is it a criminal law.It applies only in the province of BC. This law is a private law sanction requiring an individual or group to file a complaint with the provincial human rights commission for investigation within 1 year of the incident. Therefore there is no prior restraint of an individuals actions. This act also has nothing to do with or no affect on the University of Toronto, which is a different province!
Canada Customs has been quite "overzealous" in it's holding up of shipments of various forms of "porn" (gay literature, occasionally some pro-choice literature, and, of course, the kooks from the aynrand institute), but the information has almost always get through (as in the case you quoted).
In other words, no-one's liberty was taken away without due process of law...perhaps we could ask some of the prisoners at Gitmo or Jose Padilla and his ilk about due process, habeous corpus and fair trails, if we or their lawyers were allowed to meet with them.
As for displaying swastikas publicly, you've clearly never been to Toronto when the Heritage Front or when the Church of the Creator/George Burti and those pin heads are marching.
Canada may not be perfect, but it does a hell of a lot more for individual and group liberties and rights than is the current norm in the US. And next time, please at least get you facts straight before spreading your right-wing, libertarian, Ayn Rand-ish FUD.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
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
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.
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.
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...
They are not only buzzwords. They have been used too long as propaganda during the cold war era by the government (Let's see, what can we use to justify that we are right and they are wrong? Freedom!) to justify an economic and politic event.
Population was led to believe that soviets were monsters because they didn't have the freedom that americans had, but most americans couldn't even figure out what freedom really meant. The funny thing is that the same people (Rumsfeld et al.) is trying to convince americans that the terrorists attack the USA because of freedom, and then what they do? Remove some freedoms from the people! Makes a lot of sense, only in the politics logic.
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.
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.
The people in the US without medical coverage, as well as those who are under HMOs CANNOT CHOOSE which doctor to go. That's not freedom. 3) We like guns. You guys used to. We ceased to like them when we realized that they are used to kill people. Oh, you're allowed to have guns to kill animals, but not guns that kills people (who'd use an UZI for hunting???)...
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.
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.
Your an idiot.. It's not hard to emigrate, have fun.
I've actually lived abroad, and while I enjoyed my time (Australia and Italy) overseas.. I do know that most of the rest of the industrialized world has more or less the same amount of freedom that I do right now.
We all have our faults, the U.S. included (and you may not beleive it, but Canada as well). Yet we, as a people, ARE free. We can live where we want, say (most anything) we want, and live the life we want to live. Sure, we have our problems, and we as a people have long been working to fight through them. We (along with the rest of the world) are constantly evolving and trying to find the balanace between outright freedom and the order we need to continue to live the lives we do.
Am I always happy with the U.S. ? Nope.. yet I recognize that we as a people really are a free. If your to blinded by your 'enlightened nature' and your very large chip that resides on your shoulder to see it, well then I hope you spend a few years somewhere else so that you can see exactly how wrong you really are.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
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.
Yet another argument that goes along the lines of 'things are still pretty good, so don't complain'.
I will continue to complain so long as the Constitution of these United States is violated. I will settle for nothing less than full compliance with the Constitution. Arguments to the contrary are irrelevant; if you want to change the Constitution in order to legally install your repressive state, then do so - the mechanism is there, and it's been done numerous times in the past.
But until you pass that amendment, you *will* abide by the Constitution whether you like it or not. And if you or the government violates the supreme law of the land, you can bet your ass that I and others like me will stand up and cry 'foul!'.
Our Founding Fathers would expect no less.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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?
Some of our political leaders and media overreacted, and as a result, the crisis was made to be worse than it really ought to have been. Toronto was not quarantined - just a few of the hospitals. I work downtown, and some precautionary moves had to be made - mostly to prevent a situation where a whole department would be taken out for 10 days due to a precautionary quarantine. Life went on, business as usual, except for the tourism and convention business which were hurt badly by the fearmongering.
I've often suspected some deliberate economic motivation behind the WHO's advisory on travel to Toronto - given that the Canadian economy has seriously ourperformed the U.S. for the last 6-12 months. First the softwood lumber, and now the Durum Wheat fiasco, the U.S. has been hitting us hard economically, yet we still seem to be doing incredibly well despite the headwinds. Americans only seem to believe in free trade when it benefits them.
Sadly, it almost makes a twisted sort of sense.
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".
Please, before moving to Canada, can I ask you all to please register to vote and actually *vote*!?
Register for the primaries too and vote against the encumbants who support the PATRIOT act (I & II), the Iraqi misadventure and other pieces of legislation you love to hate. Remember, a lot of Democrats also voted for the above.
Considering America's low participation in its own democracy, you shouldn't be surprised the American government is acting against its citizens' own best interests.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
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.
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.
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 ?
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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
ACLU on Immigrant detentions
Mass detentions in LA
'Handful' detained in Houston
CIvil liberties groups file suit on behalf of INS detainees
US detains nearly 1200 during registry
Forgotten detainees
After Oaklahoma City, the US passed laws allowing the use of "Secret Evidence" to detain or deport. It's been used almost exclusively on Arabs and Muslims.