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.

95 of 1,329 comments (clear)

  1. Screw you, America by WolfeCanada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Screw you, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does Canada have any oil ressources?

    2. Re:Screw you, America by gilroy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      the US does not hold jurisdiction over Canada

      Not yet, anyway. But just wait until we finish off Syria and North Korea and a few other small countries. After all, if Iraq looked easy, imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....


      Sad to say, this scenario is no longer really beyond the imaginable. Sometimes my own government makes me ill. No, wait, let me say "the government of my own country" -- there is no way I'll lay claim to this cowboy administration.

    3. Re:Screw you, America by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Informative

      We have vast oil resources in Western Canada. It is exported to the US very cheaply, and here in Eastern Canada, we import oil from the Middle East at much higher prices.

      Jason
      ProfQuotes

    4. Re:Screw you, America by bandit450 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, actually...Alberta's full of it.

      Great, now I'm fearing for my life...next thing I know some "glorious" American army is going to "liberate" me from my "prison".

      You all know the sayings:
      War is peace
      Freedom is slavery
      Ignorance is strength

      --
      -- Bandit450...If-Else-Do-*TWITCH*!
    5. Re:Screw you, America by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 5, Informative

      They put out a huge ad in the NY Times earlier this year just to let everyone know that they were the US' largest supplier of oil. Apparently not many people know. -Tim

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
    6. Re:Screw you, America by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Funny

      imagine how trivial invading across an undefended border would be....

      I dunno... General Hull tried this in 1812, and got his ass whipped.

    7. Re:Screw you, America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We have vast oil resources in Western Canada. It is exported to the US very cheaply, and here in Eastern Canada, we import oil from the Middle East at much higher prices.

      We also grow large quantities of wheat in Western Canada. However, we are forced to ship it to Eastern Canada first (Canadian Wheat Board). Then we get to buy it back at higher prices. If a farmer tries to circumvent this procedure they are thrown in jail.

    8. Re:Screw you, America by Moofie · · Score: 5, Informative

      If by "liberated" you mean "purchased for cash money from the people who owned it at the time who were not Canadians", then yes, your sentence is true.

      If by "liberated" you wish to draw spurious parallels between the purchase of Alaska and the deposing of Saddam, you're an idiot.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Screw you, America by JahToasted · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Alaska, no, but they did "liberate" the Alaskan panhandle from Canada. And then too, Britain was the US's bitch.

    10. Re:Screw you, America by stew-a-cide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Notice that is for CRUDE oil.

      The US likes to import Middle East crude (unprocessed) oil because it can process it itself (value added). Canada, not being a third-world country, much prefers to do the rifining itself and ship the end product to the US.

      This is why you won't see George Bush or any of his set suggest the US make an effort to buy more stable Canadian oil: the oil refiners along the coasts (especially on South-East coast) would go ballistic.

      There's more oil in Canada than all of the Middle East combined. Most of it, however, is in the tar sands and expensive to recover (there's still a profit to be made by effecient opperators, but it's not like the Middle East where you just stick a hole in the ground and oil comes rushing out).

      Still, even without counting natural gas, Canada is the US's largest fuel supplier. Lets also not forget about hydro-electricity imported into the US from Canada.

  2. wow by Pompatus · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean I not only get to smoke pot, enjoy less crime, and get free healthcare, I get my civil liberties too!!!!

    --

    ----
    Squirrel ... It's not just for breakfast anymore
    1. Re:wow by crodak · · Score: 5, Funny
      I've heard it explained many times, that the reason why America is targeted by terrorists is that "certain elements" are simply jealous of our outstanding quality of life. They want to destroy what they can't build for themselves.

      If you're right about Canada -- what, with all the pot smoking, low crime rates, free healthcare, and civil liberties -- I would expect Canada to rise to the top of the terrorists' hit list. So, maybe instead of trying to get the damned Canadians to cooperate with us, we should simply launch an advertising campaign in the Islamic world explaining that Canada is the more logical target for their anti-western fringe element.

    2. Re:wow by shamilton · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh, 50% income tax? Maybe 30% on a healthy salary... the highest is around 43% above ~$100,000 CAD.

      And round here, these things aren't enforced nearly as much. House is worth $1,000,000, paying property tax for $300,000? Nobody cares to hear about it. And you're certainly not getting thrown in JAIL for dodging taxes.

      --
      "[A] high IQ is like a Jeep; you will still get stuck, just farther from help!" --Just d' FAQs, c.g.a
    3. Re:wow by ArcticCelt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Normally to one who have less civil liberties are the ones who retaliate, so please can you reinstate some right to the US citizens before they decide to attack Canada. ;)

      --

      Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
    4. Re:wow by gotw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me explain this a little.
      It is not the US standard of living alone which attracts terrorism, it is what it does to sustain that quality of life. The US cares about civil liberties (at least nominally) within its own shores, but those from other countries are not afforded the same rights (wasn't someone shipped to an american court rather than camp X-Ray due to their being a US citizen, the non americans were illegally imprisoned with the rest of them). It effects politics all over the world for good and bad.

      It's size and cultural power has another interesting implication. The pervasiveness of american culture and media (cinema, McDonalds, nike trainers .... maybe I mean corporate american culture and media) means that everyone in the world not in the US has knowledge of at least two cultures, that of US corporatism and their own, and when one is seen to be overpowering the other it leads to conflict. The american stereotype as ignorant and insular is in no small part influenced by the fact that by and large most americans only see one culture, their own.

      Americans with an interest in the civil liberties of all people, not just those americans with the power and money to defend their own (and to take those of others), many of whom I'm sure read slashdot should fight terrorism in their own way. By making America the state it was founded to be, by scrutinising businessmen, politicians (and anyone else in a position of power and influence) by using the power of their wallet, their vote and whatever else it takes to make america a state and a symbol that is not viewed by the rest of the world with contempt. It's not about what they cannot do, but what they see America (as a symbol for the global economic system?) doing to them.

      A perception of america as a greedy, self interested, intefering, imperialist power is what attracts terrorism. To fight terrorism america should look within.

    5. Re:wow by Wylfing · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The pervasiveness of american culture and media (cinema, McDonalds, nike trainers .... maybe I mean corporate american culture and media) means that everyone in the world not in the US has knowledge of at least two cultures, that of US corporatism and their own, and when one is seen to be overpowering the other it leads to conflict.

      Let's take the lefty propoganda down a notch. There is no "culture of US corporatism" stomping around evilly destroying foreign victims. How about we apply a much simpler theory that doesn't require a bunch of convoluted motives?

      Because we have the freedom to pursue whatever business we like, Americans have gotten very good at supplying what people want. In other words, people have a much easier time satisifying desires [1] in the U.S. than in, say, Saudi Arabia. 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.

      Now if you want to talk about motives, the likely reason there is a reaction against choosing the American way of life is that there are people (i.e., dictators, zealots) benefiting from the status quo who don't want to see that go away. Joe Saudi might say what the cleric tells him to say vis a vis the U.S., but he does so while wearing a GAP shirt and Sketchers on his feet.

      [1] Desires means, for example, praying how you like or reading a book of your choice as much as it means eating a Big Mac and watching X2.

      --
      Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
    6. Re:wow by cybercuzco · · Score: 5, Insightful
      the reason why America is targeted by terrorists is that "certain elements" are simply jealous of our outstanding quality of life.

      Thats because (Surprise!) thats not the real reason the terrorists hate us. They hate us frot he same reason the canadian wrote this article. Because we try to interfere in other countries buisness very aggressively. Second reason is that we support israel, which is anathema in the arab world. The israeli army uses US abrams tanks, US apache helicopters, and US f-15 fighters. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Israel uses them to kill palestinians (justified or not). Ultimately the terrorists want us to change our foriegn policy: stop selling arms to israel, stop supporting israel, pull US forces out of the region. Canada may support israel, but its not a canadian tank that palestinians see rolling down the street, and its not a canadian army invading iraq.

      --

  3. Hysteria. by Mr2cents · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Hysteria. by Danse · · Score: 5, Funny

      You just don't understand. Dubya just wants to take our rights and keep them in a safe place for us. That way the terrorists can't get them, don't ya see? All our rights are still there. We may even get to take our kids to see them someday. They'll be preserved in pristine condition in hermetically sealed jars. We should thank Dubya for taking such good care of our rights!

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    2. Re:Hysteria. by fiiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My friend you have hit the spot *exactly*.

      And the answer is...because it gives a wonderful excuse for any sort of action, and a convenient way of attacking those you don't like for economic, political or geostrategic reasons. Read the arab states, at the moment.

      It gives an unquestionable moral high ground for what the likes of Noam Chomsky call *state terrorism* -i.e. direct wars and state sponsored terrorism. Look at Algeria, Colombia, Israel for recent examples of state sponsored terrorism, some with links to the US...

      See this is Reagan's cold war all over again, a great way of shaping foreign policy to your convenience, and with a heavy hand.

      And the best thing is that the public is buying it!

      Thanks Canada for doing it right ;-p

      --

      yours ever, fz.
    3. Re:Hysteria. by Mr2cents · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You may now all bow your heads in a moment of silence to thank the United States of America for your freedom.

      Thank you, America, for training and funding Osama Bin Laden.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    4. Re:Hysteria. by flwombat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It just bugs me the hypocricy of those who criticize everything the U.S. does but either do it inconsistently or who fail to appropriately criticize those who have done enormously worse.

      The point is not that the U.S. is worse than other countries; comparing American foreign policy to that of Stalin's USSR or various other monstrous regimes is just ridiculous.

      The problem is that most Americans assume that since America is such a great place to live, our foreign policy must also be great, bighearted, generous, unselfish, etc. This is also not true; our foreign policy is sometimes nice and sometimes spectacularly bad, in measure approximately equal to other large powers (the difference being that we're the most powerful!).

      I genuinely believe that if Americans could have the magical ability to suddenly see American foreign policy from the perspective of non-U.S. citizens, most of them would be horrified and embarrassed about many things. But if anybody, including Americans like myself, try to point out the excesses of U.S. behavior in the world - in the interests of improving the country we love so much - our patriotism is called into question and we're immediately discredited.

      9/11 was horrifying and tragic; of that there's no question. But it's equally obvious that the response has been all out of proportion, and that some of the actions taken in the fight against terrorism have been politically motivated and/or resulted in less security, not more.

      --
      ---------
      get your war on
    5. Re:Hysteria. by js7a · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Canada wouldn't be able to 'do it right' if the U.S. didn't exist. That's right: the U.S. the sole source of freedom on this planet

      Well, since you're tracing causality, what country does the U.S. have to thank most for its freedom? France.

    6. Re:Hysteria. by AusG4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's not forget that it was the US who funded and trained Iraq's soldiers during the war against Iran.

      Oh, and what about DROPPING THE GOD DAMN A-BOMBS ON JAPAN? The country who first unleashed the nuclear menace are now the ones who are responsible enough to protect us from it? PLEASE.

      Let's not forget the use of agent orange in Vietnam, a decision that still yields deformed births and poisoned natural resources to this day.

      Or how "Old" Europe (which is what you call Germany, for some reason) was battled against by Britain and the French Underground (along with countless other allies, such as CANADA) for 2 full years before the Americans graced us with their own contribution. Just because France fell under the might of the German army quickly doesn't mean the French citizens fell with them. Without the French Underground, the war effort would have never advanced as quickly as it did.

      I can go on and on. If the U.S. is the sole source of "freedom" on this planet, then it's a sad, sad world we live in.

      --
      bash-3.00$ uname -a
      SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
    7. Re:Hysteria. by Bake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many tens of millions of civilians has the U.N. watched die while it has sat on its ass?

      Quite a few. But, then again, that's mostly due to the fact that the US used its veto in the Security Council, thus negating UN involvement. Don't blame the UN for sitting on its ass when it's the US that pulled up the chair for it to sit on.

      Care to guess how often the US has NOT vetoed against resolutions regarding illegal, israeli settlement in Palestine? Answer: 0, Zero.

      It never ceases to amaze me that, since WMD's are apparently so bad in the Middle East, how come the US doesn't interfere with the ONLY nation that literally has all sorts of WMD's, that single nation being Israel?

  4. Evolution of the State by mindpixel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Evolution of the State by samael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, Canada does seem kinda European...

    2. Re:Evolution of the State by Drakin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sad fact is, the US has had more time to evolve than Canada...

      Maybe it's not evolution though. It's more of a growing up. The parent nation of the US smacked them around a few too many times, and the US fought back, they figured that fighting back was a good way to get what you wanted. This set the course for how the US is.

      Canada on the other hand, benifited from the US fighting back, they got treated better by the same parent nation, and grew into a more stable, responsible country...

      Maybe it's time to teach the US to be responsable, and make it grow up into something more than the school yard bully?

      (just talking out my ass here... I've got nothing against the US, some of it's policies are stupid... but then again, it's not like it's that much better here in Canada.

      Anyone else notice the lack of the AC checkbox?)

    3. Re:Evolution of the State by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, Canada does seem kinda European...

      I would say that Canada is a cross between the U.S. and Europe, civically, politically, grammatically, and geographically. As such, it frequently finds itself in the middle of a tug-of-war between the two poles.

  5. Oh great. by eidechse · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now government agencies have even stopped pretending that the U.S. is the paragon of freedom.

  6. sigh by kabulykos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.)

  7. "Too much emphasis"? by geekwench · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The very fact that the government of the United States is claiming that Canada (or any other country) places "too much emphasis on civil liberties" says something profoundly disturbing about the state of our State, and the Evil Old (and young) Men currently infesting Washington.

    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...
  8. Dillema's by John_Renne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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})/
  9. Mice And Elephants by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Mice And Elephants by Galvatron · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I agree that pot should be legalized, but you have to recognize that so long as the majority of the US is against it, the US government is going to try very hard to keep Canada from doing it. If pot is legal in Canada, then we (the US; I'm American) are going to have to radically overhaul the way we monitor US-Canada border crossings. It would be an absolute nightmare (even more than it already is) for the US to have pot illegal and for Canada to have it legal.

      The privacy/terrorist issue is similar in nature. It's not that the State Department believes Canada is actively harbouring terrorists, but if Canada is less vigilent (or, less kindly, intrusive) than the US, then the US government will have to make up for the difference with more strict border checks. A system is only as secure as its most vunerable part, and the State Department is worried that Canada will become that vunerable part.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    2. Re:Mice And Elephants by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Informative
      I agree that pot should be legalized, but you have to recognize that so long as the majority of the US is against it, the US government is going to try very hard to keep Canada from doing it.
      ...I'd agree with you except that a majority of Americans do not support the current marijuana witch hunt.

      In fact, the War on (some) Drugs has little to do with the will of the people, and everything to do with being a scapegoat for hysteria, and a way to justify egregious pork budget increases.

      And it is a witch hunt... People are so scared of the flowers of a harmless plant that job applicants are mercillessly rejected if they "Test positive" for marijuana. In some states, the "pot paranoia" is so pervasive that they've enacted "Smoke a joint, lose your driver license" laws to further stigmatize marijuana smokers. Without a driver license, where can you work in this country? If you live in a city that doesn't have GREAT public transportation (thats most of them) you simply won't get a job.

      In the U.S., felons (for non-Americans, a felon is somebody convicted of a "serious" crime) can't vote. Even though arrests for drugs are about proportional to the proportion of the various races in our society, minorities serve vastly longer sentences than whites arrested for the same offense... They are three times less likely to be offered "diversionary sentencing" (ie. non-jail) to avoid felony conviction, and FIVE TIMES more likely to do jail time for a first-offense.

      Of course, since white people in the U.S. on average have more money than their minority counterparts they can afford a lawyer who can get them out of trouble without jail.

      So even though it might not have been the original intent, what you have is a de facto concerted effort to disenfrachise "undesirables."

      The only advice I have is to write your congressmen and tell them you want legalized buds-- And keep your eyes peeled for cops.
      --
      Who did what now?
  10. Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S. by lovebyte · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  11. Their evaluation of France by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 5, Insightful
    France has provided outstanding military, judicial, and law-enforcement support to the war against terrorism.

    Unfortunately, they do not support attacks on countries, justified by the war on terrorism, based on a combination of manufactured and inadequate evidence.

    1. Re:Their evaluation of France by lovebyte · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think Bush put it thus:
      "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."
      -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  12. Wait- we're the ones by Fat+Casper · · Score: 4, Insightful
    With a Bill of Rights. The Constitution protects our rights to freedom of speech, free assembly, to keep and bear arms, privacy, a speedy trial, legal counsel and not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

    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.
    1. Re:Wait- we're the ones by rtscts · · Score: 5, Funny
      and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States
      I think he's found a loophole...
  13. Let me get this straight by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Let me get this straight by ebbomega · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Very simple. Freedom has become a buzz-word in the states. The flag, the white house, apple pie, Declaration of Independence. It's all become symbol.

      Canadians pride themselves not on their past accomplishments. I know of relatively few Canadians that happen to know about the actions taken at Vimy Ridge during WWI where they took what the British and French had been trying to take for years in half a day, even fewer know about how a Canadian was the first to enact the Uniting For Peace resolution in the UN.

      But we don't base our freedom on these past actions. We base our freedom on our current standard of living and how we live our day to day lives.

      Let me put it this way. Read 1984. It's all based around having relatable symbols to your "freedom": Big Brother, Minutes of Hate, slogans and catchphrases. This is the one way to guarantee your own personal attachment to your government and as such gives more way to control the people. What are our national symbols? Beer and Hockey. These aren't things you pledge alleigance to, these are things that you do to make life more for the living.

      As far as I'm concerned, my patriotism means having a country that makes me happy with my life. It doesn't mean being blissfully in love with a flag or a pledge that you have to say every day at the beginning of class or of a history of accomplishments.

      At least that's my take on it. I'm proud to be a Canadian, but not because I was told to be.

      --
      Karma: Non-Heinous
    2. Re:Let me get this straight by holviala · · Score: 5, Funny
      What are our [Canadian] national symbols? Beer and Hockey.

      As a Finn, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside... Beer..... Hockey.... More beer.....

      :-)=

    3. Re:Let me get this straight by intermodal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually, I find that one of the big problems in the US is mislabeling what should be called "Nationalism" as "Patriotism". A patriot stands up against his government when it does wrong, but loves his countrymen above the government. A nationalist does whatever the government compels him to. Nationalism was big in Germany in the thirties I hear. These are sad times for the true American patriot.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  14. Remember why 9/11 happened... by weave · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Bush claimed shortly after 9/11 that we were attacked because they hate us because of our freedoms.

    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.)

  15. Terrorists won already by LittleStone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Terrorists won already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Reading this reminded me of something I read in my local newspaper (Canadian) a few weeks after 9/11.

      It was basically a transcribed message (or something like it) from Osama bin Laden saying, essentially, that they (al Queda) had already won. Supposedly, the idea behind their attacks was not to kill citizens, or destroy landmarks. It was to kill liberties, and destroy freedom. Apparantly Osama wanted the citizens of the US to live in fear, and to loose their freedoms. He wanted them to experience life as other countries did, with checkpoints, searches, and the constant fear of attacks.

      It would seem he succeeded admirably.

  16. Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S. by borgdows · · Score: 3, Funny

    Moreover, Celine Dion is from Quebec!! She's a secret weapon of the French to invade North America!!

  17. Author's words, not State Department's by Galvatron · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Author's words, not State Department's by AndrewRUK · · Score: 4, Informative

      What ths State Dept. report says is
      "Some US law-enforcement officers have expressed concern that Canadian privacy laws, as well as funding levels for law enforcement, inhibit a fuller and more timely exchange of information and response to requests for assistance. Also, Canadian laws and regulations intended to protect Canadian citizens and landed immigrants from Government intrusion sometimes limit the depth of investigations." (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19 987.htm)
      Sounds to me like they're complaining that Canada cares too much about privacy and preventing Government intrusion, and I would consider that to be caring about liberty.

  18. Re:Respecting Canada by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >Bowling for Columbine is mostly a work of FICTION

    It might be, but the url you gave, gives no proof of this. It doesn't actually contradict anything in the film, just says it doesn't like what it hears, and says it is a work of fiction, without following it up.

    Do you have any better links?

  19. Interesting read but.. by praksys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Interesting read but.. by glenebob · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I have no idea why American politicians gets so wound up about dope...
      Power. Control. Money. What used to be accomplished through the proper application of religion is now done through things like War on Drugs and War on Terrorism. They even tried it with a War on Alcohol a few years back, but that one was way too over the top and it didn't fly. We now have a War on Tobacco ramping up too.
  20. Crime in Canada by ottawanker · · Score: 5, Interesting
    .. suggests that while Canada has been helpful in the fight against terrorism, it doesn't spend enough on policing and places too much emphasis on civil liberties.

    This is interesting.. the following are some stats I found on crime in Canada and the US (and Sweden, see this page.)
    - Homicides per 100,000......Canada-1.8..US-5.5
    - Assault/Threat per 100,000.Canada-4.0..US-5.7
    - Prisoners per 100,000......Canada-118..US-546
  21. Grim Shadow! by glenebob · · Score: 3, Insightful
    U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said although there has been great progress in the last year, terrorism still "casts its grim shadow" across the globe.
    The War on Terrorism is casting a grim shadow across the globe, and I dare say it's darker than the one terrorism ever cast. I am honestly one hell of a lot more afraid of what this administration will do next than I am of any potential terrorist attack.

    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.

  22. Re:Tomorrow's headlines in the U.S. by ArcticCelt · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  23. revokethepresident.com by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It can't be as much fiction as that war on Iraq (where are the WMDs again?) or the last US presidential election.

  24. Left and Right by gonvaled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

  25. IRA by malx · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  26. some Marijuana stats by UnixRevolution · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:some Marijuana stats by patoco12 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Deaths from tobacco cigarettes in the US, 2002: 400,000

      Deaths from Marijuana in the US, 2002: 0.00


      These numbers mean very little:
      1. Both are carcinogens.
      2. Most people who smoke marijuana also smoke tobacco; these deaths count as tobacco related deaths.

      I agree that the U.S. marijuana laws are a bit ridiculous, but don't argue that it should be legal because it is "safe".

  27. Uhh... what? by AnimeFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  28. USA 2nd World? by mindpixel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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]

  29. Re:canadian forces? by ebbomega · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  30. Canadian Jokes by miketang16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  31. Re:canadian forces? by ArcticCelt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  32. Re:Nifty Numbers by niola · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  33. Franks and Karimov by KjetilK · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Scroll to the bottom of Eurasia Overview and you'll see Tommy Franks cheerfully shaking hands with Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan. Here, you see why people really do not believe that the war in Iraq has anything to do with freedom.

    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
  34. Re:Canada by pudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.


    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 ... 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.

    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 ... 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.

  35. How to immigrate to Canada by privacyt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    At the risk of getting myself declared an "enemy combatant," I urge my fellow Americans to bookmark this site if you are interested in finding refuge in the free state to our north. Canada is looking for skilled workers. Take this handy self-assessment tool to see if you qualify. You get points for having an advanced degrees. Also, knowledge of French gets you some credit.

    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.

  36. Don't bag out the US so much by maroubra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not an American...

    I'm not even Canadian... ...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...

    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.

  37. MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
    1. Re:MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT by Aapje · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing I liked about Bowling for Columbine was that Moore was willing to be convinced. He started out believing that gun ownership/control is the major issue, but he later becomes convinced that a culture of fear is the main reason for the gun violence in America. If you really believe that the movie is simply advocating gun control, you should probably see it again with a more open mind.

      --

      The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
  38. Re:Then Leave... by conteXXt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 /. (Karma suicide ensues)
  39. Point to clarify by etherlad · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  40. Re:blame canada! by uncoveror · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  41. Definition of Terrorism by Apostata · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  42. Re:Respecting Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, I read your article. I think you missed the point. Who cares if there are 11% non-white or 14%? Bowling isn't a statistics movie. It points out problems, and the few percentage points that you found that didn't match the statistics *you* had do nothing to change any of the questions Moore's movie asks.

    Yes, Bowling isn't really a documentary. More often than not, Moore doesn't document things, he creates them, but that doesn't change the fact that these things *did* and *do* happen.

  43. Re:canadian forces? by RickHunter · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  44. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! by ianscot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There is no "culture of US corporatism" stomping around evilly destroying foreign victims.

    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.
  45. Not Legal, Decriminalized by alteridem · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  46. Can't believe this got modded up to 5 by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Michael Moore is one of the sleaziest documentary makers/authors around. Almost nothing he says is true.

    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.
  47. Re:blame canada! by Karpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  48. Re:canadian forces? by Darlock · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  49. Stop this crap by WildBeast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  50. Re:canadian forces? by sjanich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The current candian military is a pale shadow of the force that fought so well in WW2.

  51. Re:blame canada! by enjo13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  52. Re:blame canada! by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  53. Re:A recent example by Art_Vandelai · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I think Canada was a victim of poor timing on this one - almost all of the confirmed cases could be traced to a single individual visiting Canada from the far east, which occured before any warnings about travellers from those areas were ever made public.

    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.

  54. Re:blame canada! by Noel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sadly, it almost makes a twisted sort of sense.

    1. THEY hate US because of our FREEDOM
    2. THEY attack US because THEY hate US
    3. WE remove our FREEDOM
    4. THEY stop hating US
    5. ...
    6. PROFIT!
  55. Re:blame canada! by MagikSlinger · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  56. Canadian and American differences by ekc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. :-)