Canadian Government Weary of Patriot Act

IllogicalStudent writes "An article on canoe discusses how the Canadian government is moving to counter worries surrounding Canadian citizens' privacy being compromised by the United States' Patriot act. Apparently the FBI currently has the right, through Patriot, to search documents which may contain Canadian information sent to US firms carrying out work under contract. Thankfully, privacy still means something up here."

Comments

Just goes to show

[alexwcovington]

When you get paranoid, your friends suffer more than your enemies...

Re:Just goes to show

[MarkRose]

I don't see how this applies here. First, the US wasn't being paranoid when they implemented the USA Patriot act -- it was simply a police-state power grab.

Canada, on the other hand, has every right to be concerned. Perhaps our "paranoia" will bring more attention to the issue in the us, helping our friends to the south out.

Re:Just goes to show

[SenseiLeNoir]

Something us brits are learning the hard way. I wish the British government had the same sort of backbone as the Canadian goverment.

The Canadians have a lot to loose if any tension occurs between them and the US, far more than the British, yet they have been able to stand their ground well, whilst still maintaining the level of co-operation with the US, unlike our "sell out" government of Teflon Tony, who seems to totally ignore the British public.

And aside point, initially the British public didnt exactly say NO to the invasion of IRAQ, just that we were concerned about HOW it was going to be done. When our voices were not being heard, thats when many people decided to do towards the anti war message, in order to poke our government into action.

Re:Just goes to show

[bigberk]

I mean no offence by this, but the British PM has been acting like a little USA fan boy. War? Sure! Our own citizens don't want it? To hell with them! Britain will invade and help spread freedom shoulder to shoulder with their American friends.

As a Canadian, I'm proud of our former prime minister (Jean Chretien) had the balls to stay out of an aggressive unprovoked invasion on a soverign nation rather than being just another American cheerleader.

Re:Just goes to show

[SenseiLeNoir]

I know, I went to Canada in September last year, and I really liked the very constructive and peacefull opposition to the war that was present. Very good viewpoints were given.

The thing which I was trying to highlight in my previous comment was that the British people were very much like the Canadians, it was only because our government refused to listen that some turned more radical in their opposition.

When will governments learn that if you oppress the views of the public too much, people will stop being quite so rational....

And anyone who thinks the British public are "isolationists" who dont give a damn about people in other countries, I just have to look at the contributions of the British Public in raising money for the tsunami funds, which at many points exceeded the government's contributions. And the generousity is at all levels.

At my wife's nursing home, an old man graciously donated £100 to sponsor my wifes 24hour silence to raise money. He died the next day.

The point is, the number of citizens who truely and really wanted to help, and our dumb arse prime minister was in egypt on holiday.

Re:Just goes to show

[robocrop]

The problem with that statement is that the basic assumption is flawed. Canadians are not our friends. They are smug, pretentious people who love to ridicule us while simultaneously exploiting all the benefits of being our ally.

In other words, there just like every other second-place nation we protect.

I'm sure next on Slashdot we'll be hearing about how Canada (which is, of course, a Utopian society) only uses Linux and Open Source software, is 100% vegan, can freely exchange pirated materials, etc.

The only thing I despise more than a smug, complacent Canadian is the self-hating American who can't wait to slag on their own country.

Mod me a troll, I don't care. I know how it works here. Say Canada is Utopia and the US is hell, it's objective and news-worthy. Say it isn't all it's cracked up to be, and you're trolling.

Re:Just goes to show

[fm6]

...the US wasn't being paranoid when they implemented the USA Patriot act -- it was simply a police-state power grab.

Why do you think police states happen? Because somebody decides that Evil Overlord looks good on their resume? Only in comic books. Real world police states happen because the citizenry becomes afraid, and decides to trade social freedom for a sense of security. Sometimes cynical politicians exploit public paranoia, but the most dangerous leaders are those who validate themselves by a sense of persecution.

Re:Just goes to show

[DunbarTheInept]

Your characterization applies to the writers but not the ratifiers of the PATRIOT ACT. I don't think paranoia was the motivation of the people in the executive branch who wrote the PATRIOT ACT, but I think it was the motivation of the people who passed it in the legislative branch.

Re:Just goes to show

[IgnoramusMaximus]

In other words, there just like every other second-place nation we protect

From what or whom, exactly, do you protect us?

Now that the USSR was revealed to be a stawman all that time, pitifully and desperately trying to defend itself from you, and the Islamic militants do not have any beef with us since we do not try to occupy their lands or prop-up their opressors they are out too. North Korea is only concerned with South Korea and you. China wants regional influence and to become a commercial power, their problems are with Taiwan. So let me hear your current list of monsters under our beds which need imperative, immediate, righteous, insanely expensive, corrupt and thugish defense by your corporations at the expense of our freedoms.

Re:Just goes to show

[handslikesnakes]

In the same vein as "they hate us because we're free", "they laugh at us because they're jealous"?

But really, you are trolling. Nobody said Canada is a utopia, and while I wouldn't want to live there right now the US is hardly a hell.

Oh, and we can freely exchange pirated materials here.

Re:Just goes to show

[Triskele]

There was and unbelievable amount of flip-flopping over what the government's policy was.

Congratulations! You have caught the FlipFlop memetic virus. You probably caught it by listening to a right-wing shock-jock or watching Republican adverts on Fox. But you might have caught it from chatting to a buddy. This is a mild virus compared with Republicanism or Creationism but you should probably get it treated anyway. Please proceed to the nearest clinic for a full checkup and inoculation against further brain viruses. (Please note that some people are memetically prone to catching such viruses - this is known as an inability to think for yourself.)

Re:Just goes to show

[Brandybuck]

As a Canadian, I'm proud of our former prime minister (Jean Chretien) had the balls to stay out of an aggressive unprovoked invasion on a soverign nation rather than being just another American cheerleader.

Does Canada still have troops in Bosnia? I'm too lazy to look it up.

Re:Just goes to show

[robocrop]

Now that the USSR was revealed to be a stawman all that time

You must mean the strawman that was building missile bases in Cuba? The strawman that invaded Afghanistan? The strawman that has oppressed most of the small countries that comprised the Soviet Union (talk to a Ukrainian about what a strawman the USSR was).

What happened was we outspent the USSR on protection, which caused it to collapse. Another instance of our actions bringing about peace, and another instance of our actions not being recognized.

the Islamic militants do not have any beef with us since we do not try to occupy their lands

Really? Funny how they say something completely different. Something about democracy being a great evil.

Also, might interest you to know that the Islamists are terrorizing Spain (which is not a gigantic power like the US), France (ditto), and many other small countries.

They also have a tiny beef with the existence of a place called Israel. You know, the place we all created for the Jews to live?

Your attitude - we haven't been attacked yet, so we don't care - is markedly self-centered and naive.

North Korea is only concerned with South Korea and you. China wants regional influence and to become a commercial power, their problems are with Taiwan.

Why do you think North Korea is only concerned with South Korea (as you put it)? Maybe because of UN (mostly US) action to prevent the invasion of South Korea? Why do you think China isn't expanding? Maybe because of our military and economic might?

I love this new-age short-sightedness about how the world is so peaceful and we don't need military power. It's largely the US and military power that has made the world peaceful.

Re:Just goes to show

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You must mean the strawman that was building missile bases in Cuba?

In response to the USA putting them in Turkey first. Please get your Cuban Missile Crisis facts straight.

The strawman that invaded Afghanistan?

In a fit of stupidity USSR responded to a request of a then Afghan government of Nur Mohammad Taraki for help to defeat a coup by an Islamist named Hafizullah Amin sponsored by the USA. And the rest is history.

The strawman that has oppressed most of the small countries that comprised the Soviet Union (talk to a Ukrainian about what a strawman the USSR was)

While that was indeed happening, Stalin and particularly the later governments had no intention of expanding to Canada, and as the declassifed Kremlin archives show, were always in a reactionary, defensive stance to what they preceived as their mortal threat: NATO. Note that Warsaw Pact was formed in response to NATO, not the other way around.

Really? Funny how they say something completely different. Something about democracy being a great evil.

... in their own lands.

Also, might interest you to know that the Islamists are terrorizing Spain (which is not a gigantic power like the US), France (ditto), and many other small countries

All of whom have large impoverished Islamic populations and subsequent internal problems. Also Spain was singled out for helping out the USA in its Iraq crusade, all attacks ceased since they withdrew.

They also have a tiny beef with the existence of a place called Israel. You know, the place we all created for the Jews to live?

90% of the planet has "beef" with the appartheid, racist, usurping, violent, expansionist, militaristic policies of the state of Israel. That has nothing to do with anti-semitism or "place for the Jews" to live and everything with some of those Jews deciding that they are superior to all other human beings and acting accordingly. That of course does not excuse their Arab foes from responsibility for their own share of idiocies and attrocities. But your singling out the Islamists as "anti-Israel" (many of whom having justified grievances towards Israel) and trying to pretend that it somehow constitutes a deal with the Devil is telling. Also you neglected to mention which border does Canada share with Israel.

Why do you think North Korea is only concerned with South Korea (as you put it)? Maybe because of UN (mostly US) action to prevent the invasion of South Korea?

No because, South and North Korea are the same country and the South wishes to overtake and rule the North, while the North wishes to rule the South.

Why do you think China isn't expanding?

Because there is nothing to indicate that China is on a mission to take over the planet other then paranoid delusions of neocons cabalists plotting in their basements for the day when they will have to defend Manhattan from the Chinese, the same way they plotted to shoot the Red Army when it gets there, right after the Antichrist does. Things which should be of greater concern to psychiatrists then sane people discussing global affairs

Maybe because of our military and economic might?

Now you are getting somewhere. Sustaining that military and economic might now requires to have everyone frightened silly of imaginary enemies everywhere.

I love this new-age short-sightedness about how the world is so peaceful and we don't need military power. It's largely the US and military power that has made the world peaceful.

Like Iraq for example. Note that accusing his opponents of "short-sightedness" was Hitler's favourite response when they doubted his assertion of the "Germany's enemies plotting to keep her from fullfilling her destiny".

Re:Just goes to show

[robocrop]

In response to the USA putting them in Turkey first. Please get your Cuban Missile Crisis facts straight.

The only important point here is that the Soviet Union was capable of deploying missiles in Cuba. This handily defeats your "strawman" position. The Cold War was very real, and causation for it is much deeper than the US putting missiles in Turkey.

In a fit of stupidity USSR responded to a request of a then Afghan government of Nur Mohammad Taraki for help to defeat a coup by an Islamist named Hafizullah Amin sponsored by the USA. And the rest is history.

Just plain wrong. First Daud seized power from King Zahir (without killing him) and made Afghanistan a republic. A constitution was created, and Daud was elected president. He even had a civilian cabinet. But Daud was killed in a coup by the Revolutionary Council in 1978 (led by Noor Muhammed Turaki and Hafizullah Amin). These men suspended Afghanistan's constitution and attempted to institute "scientific socialism". Devout Muslims resisted this; Amin asked the USSR for help, and the US backed the Mujahadeen against the USSR.

To clarify: the US backed the will of the people against the rule of a tyrannical leader and the power of the Soviet Union (your strawman).

Quite different from supporting terrorists blowing up civilians.

While that was indeed happening

Thank you. You just admitted your statement was entirely false.

Stalin and particularly the later governments had no intention of expanding to Canada, and as the declassifed Kremlin archives show, were always in a reactionary, defensive stance to what they preceived as their mortal threat: NATO. Note that Warsaw Pact was formed in response to NATO, not the other way around.

Despite this being moot, since you've admitted your position was wrong, all of this is the direct result of our power standing up against them.

... in their own lands.

Not what they said at all. I suggest you read more.

All of whom have large impoverished Islamic populations and subsequent internal problems.

... Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. You concede that there are other motivating forces behind the terrorism than the evil old US, and that there is a real enemy to fight.

Also Spain was singled out for helping out the USA in its Iraq crusade, all attacks ceased since they withdrew.

Obviously you are unaware of past actions by the Basque separatist group, the ETA, et al. And are you advocate giving in to terrorist demands?

... snip anti-Israel ranting ... Also you neglected to mention which border does Canada share with Israel.

You must mean the seven-days war, when Israel tried to expand - oh, no, sorry, they defended themselves from annhialation by Arabs.

You must mean the daily suicide bombings the Israelis commit against the "Palestinians" ... oh, no wait, that's backwards.

By the way, Israel not being a neighbor of Canada is irrelevant. The UN, of which you are a (very minor) member, created Israel. And the point was that not just our "bases overseas" cause Islamic violence. Again you very readily admit there are other motivating factors than the US, or the US military bases.

No because, South and North Korea are the same country and the South wishes to overtake and rule the North, while the North wishes to rule the South.

Sorry, I presumed basic reading comprehension abilities. My meaning was: why do you think this is a concern for Korea, and not a done deal? Because we prevented North Korea - a true hell hole that you don't seem to worry about - from taking over South Korea.

Because there is nothing to indicate that China is on a mission to take over the planet

Of course not. NOT NOW. Why don't you examine some of the 20th-century rhetoric coming from that countr

Re:Just goes to show

[MarkRose]

If you're a member of a government body, and you vote FOR a piece of legislation, you damned well take FULL responsibility for its powers and AGREE with its intent. I don't care if you didn't bother to read it. It's entirely irresponsible to pass something without a thorough comprehension of the content.

Re:Just goes to show

[timeOday]

Which is another way of saying, "Bring back Saddam! We liked him!"

Being American during Saddam's rule of Iraq was awful wasn't it? I remember all the billions of dollars we spent, and the thousands of young Americans who died over there.

Oh, wait, that's now.

Re:Just goes to show

[rho]

Ah, I see. "So long as those darkies are dying over there, and not all up in my face, it's easier to dismiss them."

Re:Just goes to show

[timeOday]

Invading Iraq hasn't worked out very well as a humanitarian mission (and Bush didn't sell it that way beforehand, either). We've brought death to tens of thousands of Iraqis. There isn't even an official body count, because we'd rather not know.

Re:Just goes to show

[DunbarTheInept]

Executive (drafted the bill): motivation = power grab.
Legistlative (ratified it): motivation = paranoia and stupidity.

Both are responsible and I never said otherwise like you are implying.

Re:Just goes to show

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The only important point here is that the Soviet Union was capable of deploying missiles in Cuba. This handily defeats your "strawman" position. The Cold War was very real, and causation for it is much deeper than the US putting missiles in Turkey.

The only important point here is that the Soviet Union was defending itself from the aggression by the USA. Hence the "strawman". As in the wholly fabricated idea of USSR on the attack was used to justify ever-expanding military spending. That kind of "strawman". I never said that USSR, China or other countries did not/do not have military power, only that they were not attempting to attack Canada, ever, thus we never needed your "defense". Strawman. As in a fake, made up, threat.

The example of Cuban Missile Crisis, not only does not "defeat" my argument, on the contrary, quite handily illustrates who the aggressor was.

First Daud seized power from King Zahir (without killing him) and made Afghanistan a republic. A constitution was created, and Daud was elected president. He even had a civilian cabinet. But Daud was killed in a coup by the Revolutionary Council in 1978 (led by Noor Muhammed Turaki and Hafizullah Amin) These men suspended Afghanistan's constitution and attempted to institute "scientific socialism". Devout Muslims resisted this; Amin asked the USSR for help, and the US backed the Mujahadeen against the USSR.

To clarify: the US backed the will of the people against the rule of a tyrannical leader and the power of the Soviet Union (your strawman)

You neglected to mention that Daud was a cousin of the king, that he was a dictator, that he was dependant on Turaki and Amin for his power, that he started to persecute the Islamists, which the Revolutionary Council continued, that Amin killed Turaki and that the other members of the Revolutionary Council asked USSR for help fearing that Amin (who was going totally insane) will kill them all, that the USSR had support of a large number of Afghanis (The Northern Alliance, so famously praised by the USA when it helped you against Taliban) etc etc etc. In other words USSR engaged in a country right on its border, government of which (just as illegitimate as any to date) asked and went to fight against a murderous bunch of nutcases known as the Taliban. USSR had its own ulterior motives and was supremely brutal, but to present it as "people" against "tyrants" takes a particularly deranged neoconservative rah, rah, USA-uber-alles mind.

Oh, and just to remind you, the topic is "defending" Canada. None of: Daud, Taraki, Amin, USSR nor even Taliban in Afghanistan ever made a slightest of beeps about wanting to overtake Toronto. Ever. Even once.

Quite different from supporting terrorists blowing up civilians.

No as a matter of fact, exactly the same since the Mujahideen did precisely that (and carried that method quite handsomely into one other place on one day in September).

But curiously, not in Ottawa. I wonder.

Thank you. You just admitted your statement was entirely false.

You are a classic self-congratulatory, alternate-reality inhabiting, neo-conservative. In your warped mind, anything anyone says, constitutes "admission of falsehood". Not only the fact that the Soviets opressed Ukraine has nothing to do with defense of Canada but the Soviets inhereited Ukraine from the Tzarist Russia, a great pal of the USA, who had it opressed for a long while before that. But as expected, you can only see the choice bits that fit your pre-conceived convictions. I wonder if this duscussion, like with most cultist conservative believers, has any purpose. You will just ignore choice bits, invent others and if faced with unrefutable evidence of your error, you will just declare yourself "victorious" and run away.

.. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. You concede that there are other motivating forces behind the terrorism than the evil old US, a

Re:Just goes to show

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Oh and I missed this choice morsel: Not what they said at all. I suggest you read more.

From one Osama Bin Laden (someone I have a reason to suspect knows something about aims of militant Islam): "Let him (Mr. Bush) tell us why we did not attack Sweden, for example. It is obvious that those who hate freedom cannot have the pride of the 19 (September 11 suicide hijackers), God rest their souls. If we fought you, it is because we are free men, we do not ignore values, we want to return freedom to our nation. If you play havoc with our security, we play havoc with yours."

Perheaps you noted the phrase "our nation". Unless my geography is waaaay off and Canada is located in the area of Mesopotamia where the Calliphate once was, you got a problem with your reasoning.

Re:Just goes to show

[robocrop]

The only important point here is that the Soviet Union was defending itself from the aggression by the USA

Interesting how your position has changed. First the Soviet Union was a strawman - not a real threat. Then when examples were given of what type of threat the Soviet Union was, you stated they were a real threat, but only because they were responding to US aggression. This is known to be false by anyone who has read their history. In fact you can't even pretend to believe it for long - I quote:

USSR had its own ulterior motives and was supremely brutal

So to summarize your position: the USSR was a nonexistent threat that was supremely brutal. The USSR was a non-brutal brutal strawman which didn't act aggressively, but if they did it was just because the US provoked them into it. Your anti-American bias is, frankly, psychotic.

Oh, and just to remind you, the topic is "defending" Canada.

A topic which, like all the others we have covered, you appear supremely unqualified to debate. You don't seem to realize that "defending" free countries doesn't just mean getting out your gun when Ivan comes knocking on your door. Imagine what would have happened if the US had not grown its military, but the USSR had. The world would be a much different place; however it is safe to assume that people like yourself would be decrying the brutality and horror of Russia and talking about what a saint the US was.

I never claimed that USA is the sole motivating force of terrorism

Really? Let me quote you:

the Islamic militants do not have any beef with us since we do not try to occupy their lands or prop-up their opressors

Your position: Islamists bomb the US, its allies, and random innocent people because we have bases on "their land" (including land granted the Jews by the UN, which you still believe belongs to the Islamists) and we "prop up" their oppressors. Both of these positions have been proven false; the militants themselves have said democracy is their enemy, and you have even offered other causes for their antagonism. Now you want to pretend you never said it. If I said something that stupid, so would I.

A grave mistake which the UN regretted ever since.

Again, let us summarize. You know more than the UN. You know more than the US. If only we were all as enlightened as you. You're nothing more than a thinly-veiled, anti-American, anti-Semitic racist. You seem to believe that the world can just sort itself out, and we should never get involved. Some more of your choice quotes:

the problems of Spain and France are internal problems of Spain and France
The problem was and will remain for Koreans to sort out. Just like Vietnam was for the Vietnamese

I'm sure you feel that the Sudanese are doing just fine, along with the Mogadishans, Bosnia, and of course the "supremacist" Jews you hate so much. C'mon, show your true colors: you really believe nobody should have stopped Hitler, don't you?

The defense of free society is a responsibility that has largely fallen to us, because we are the leader of the free world. We protect you every day, as we have done for years. Not because we particularly like you - but because, by your good luck, you are like a tick on the neck of a big dog. You are one of the many countries that take from us with one hand and flip us off with the other.

People like you speak in grandiose terms, but I see you for what you are. You're just a coward. If the death is happening across the globe, it doesn't bother you - as long as you're not involved. You would rather 1000 people die due to your inaction than 1 die due to your action.

And if you mattered, we might care. At the end of the day you're still the mouse, and we're still the elephant.

Re:Just goes to show

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Interesting how your position has changed.

My original position: USSR = strawman. The refined position: USSR no threat to Canada ergo USSR = strawman. The more refined version: USSR threat to its own citizens and silly nations whose dictators invited it, USSR no threat to Canada, ergo USSR = strawman. The very refined position: USSR threat to its own citizens and silly nations whose dictators invited it, USSR threat to others introduced because of mad arms race started by USA and panic within USSR about it, but still USSR no threat to Canada ergo USSR = strawman.

In other words you do not get to threaten someone you do not like with a gun on the street and then claim to "defend" innocent bystanders if the other guy produces his own gun. Even if the other guy swears blasphemously in Russian, beats up on his wife and had an altrication with a neighbour once. Still noone appointed you a cop. The threat to the bystanders was introduced by your beligerent, self-righteous action not his.

I will refine this further yet for your convenience, you need only to ask.

First the Soviet Union was a strawman - not a real threat. Then when examples were given of what type of threat the Soviet Union was, you stated they were a real threat, but only because they were responding to US aggression.

I already made it as simple as humanely possible above for you. I can try big letters if that will help.

So to summarize your position: the USSR was a nonexistent threat that was supremely brutal.

Quite right. The threat can be (this part is obviously beyond you ) local. As in if you have a vicious dog in your house, he cannot bite me up here in Canada while he is there with you. Thus a threat the dog represents to you is nonexistant to me. If you were to demand that I send you money to protect me from the threat of your vicious dog, I would call the threat of the dog "strawman" (hmm "strawdog"?). Or should I try those big letters?

The USSR was a non-brutal brutal strawman which didn't act aggressively, but if they did it was just because the US provoked them into it.

Nothing of the sort, although your attempt at putting words into my mouth is amusing.

Your anti-American bias is, frankly, psychotic.

You are confusing my devotion to reality with "anti-American bias" and it is indeed making you psychotic.

Your position: Islamists bomb the US, its allies, and random innocent people because we have bases on "their land" (including land granted the Jews by the UN, which you still believe belongs to the Islamists)

Not only you have bases but you actively meddle in the internal affairs of countries in the Middle East. Additionally, the land "given" by the UN was not UN's to give in the first place. But even if one accepts existence of Israel on that land, the 1947 borders are but a fraction of the present state of Israel, vast majority of "its" land is indeed the result of aggression and conquest. But all of this aside, you claim that I said that "US is sole motivating force of terrorism" which is patently not the case, as being (unlike Canada) "a cause" does not equal "only cause" which is the part that you made up. Islamists also bomb the various corrupt "governments" in their own countries. None of which has anything to do with "defense" of Canada, a subject which you are again desperately trying to depart.

Again, let us summarize. You know more than the UN. You know more than the US. If only we were all as enlightened as you. You're nothing more than a thinly-veiled, anti-American, anti-Semitic racist. You seem to believe that the world can just sort itself out, and we should never get involved.

Nothing of the sort. I base my assertion on this simple fact: since the creation of Israel the UN General Assembly passed 429 anti-Israel resolutions, in which Israel was "condemned" 321 times. From 1967 to 1988 the Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel. During that span, Is

Re:Just goes to show

[robocrop]

My original position: USSR = strawman. The refined position: USSR no threat to Canada

So, in your own words: you recant your original position, that the USSR was not a threat and thus was a strawman. That's all that matters.

As for the rest of it: you have a very ill-informed world view and imagine that the US was the sole provacateur during the Cold War. This is a position so oblivious to fact that it stymies me. It would take pages to educate you as to the actual events of the cold war, but your inaccuracies about the Cuban Missile Crisis at least need to fully pointed out.

You claim that the USSR was forced to place missiles in Cuba because of US missiles in Turkey. This is, simply, ludicrous. The USSR was actually more pissed off about our presence in Berlin than anything else - Kruschev actually called Berlin the "bone in his throat". The USSR wanted to take over all of Germany (and this is a long history going back to the systematic massacre of innocent Germans by the Russians - numbering into the millions - after WWII). The Russians built the Berlin wall after the Vienna summit of 1961, a pure act of aggression.

Kruschev, much like Kennedy, wanted his country to come out on top in the cold war. Kennedy was an inexperienced president, and Kruschev felt that he could push him around. So after dominating Kennedy at the Vienna summit, and building the Berlin wall, he felt that it was time to take decisive action and place nuclear missiles within strike range of the US. This was all aggression - not response.

In fact, the missiles in Turkey which you keep blathering about were obsolete technology!

This is just one example of the shallowness of your world view. That you could look at this one incident and come to the conclusion that this was all due to US aggression - completely ignoring the role the USSR played - shows your ignorance and bias.

Nothing of the sort. I base my assertion on this simple fact: since the creation of Israel the UN General Assembly passed 429 anti-Israel resolutions, in which Israel was "condemned" 321 times. From 1967 to 1988 the Security Council passed 88 resolutions directly against Israel. During that span, Israel was "condemned" 49 times (source wikipedia). If that is not an expression of regret, I am not sure what is

It's actually an expression of anti-Semitism, largely because so many of the UN member countries have large Islamic communities. Israel cannot be erased, it was created and has a right to exist - no matter how much you anti-Semites want to destroy it or enact your "final solution".

Your nation has killed far more people due to its actions then its inactions ever could. And I am talking the brazenly unjustifiable ones like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia or Iraq!

Once again proving my point regarding your ignorance. You don't even know how many people were killed in Vietnam after we finally withdrew (estimates are 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 killed by Pol Pot's regime after we withdrew; war deaths were lower than that). How many people were killed in the Sudan? (estimates are around 40,000 people killed and >1,000,000 displaced)? In Bosnia? On and on?

You earlier made the statement that Hitler was an exception to your "let them kill themselves" rule because he actually tried to expand. So, by your reasoning, if Hitler had just stayed in Germany and killed all the Jews there, you'd be fine with that, too.

You are a psychotic racist.

In closing, I really just have to let you speak for yourself:

You are the leading bullshiter of free world, hands down, no contest there
Again, self-righteous, pompous, self-aggrandizing, megalomaniac bullshit.
you are just a wart on the ass of the planet

You seriously claim this isn't overtly demented anti-US hate speech? This is why people who are deemed psychotic are not allowed to defend themselves in court - all they have to do is open their mouth and we see how crazy they are.

Re:Just goes to show

[IgnoramusMaximus]

So, in your own words: you recant your original position, that the USSR was not a threat and thus was a strawman. That's all that matters.

You are nuts. I say "no" and in the next of your replies I get "so you said yes!". This is some sort of comprehension disorder on display here on your part. I suspect that it does not matter at all what is being said, you will just come back with "aha! I was right!" to absolutely everything.

You claim that the USSR was forced to place missiles in Cuba because of US missiles in Turkey. This is, simply, ludicrous. ... [subsequent fantastic flights of fancy ommited for brevity]....

From George Washington University Cuban Missile Crisis site:

The new documentation, combined with recent testimony by Soviet and Cuban officials, also sheds light on what is perhaps the most important puzzle of the missile crisis, namely, what motivated the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons in Cuba. The declassified record shows that U.S. officials were well aware that their deployment of Jupiter missiles near Soviet borders in Turkey and Italy in 1959 would be deeply resented by Soviet officials; even President Eisenhower noted that it would be a "provocative" step analogous to the deployment of Soviet missiles in "Mexico or Cuba.(9) A declassified military history of the Jupiter system reveals that the rockets became operational in April 1962 - an event that may have contributed to Khrushchev's proposal, made the very same month, to deploy similar weapons in Cuba.(10)

In addition, the documents lend credence to Khrushchev's claim that a primary Soviet motivation was the defense of Cuba against a U.S. invasion. For years, U.S. analysts have dismissed this as a face-saving, after-the-fact rationale that enabled the Soviets to declare victory in the confrontation rather than admit defeat. But formerly top-secret documents, released to the National Security Archive in January 1989, provide a detailed description of a 1962 U.S. covert action program known as OPERATION MONGOOSE, which combined sabotage, infiltration, and psychological warfare activities with military exercises and contingency operations for a possible invasion to overthrow the Castro government. Guidelines for OPERATION MONGOOSE, tacitly approved by President Kennedy in March 1962, noted that the "final success" of the program would "require decisive U.S. military intervention." Although Kennedy never formally authorized an invasion, former administration officials acknowledge that Cuban intelligence had infiltrated the CIA's exile groups and learned of plans for a potential invasion - which, ironically, was scheduled for October 1962.

You will forgive me if I take their analysis over your incomprehensible, unsubstantiated, delusional fabrications.

It's actually an expression of anti-Semitism, largely because so many of the UN member countries have large Islamic communities. Israel cannot be erased, it was created and has a right to exist - no matter how much you anti-Semites want to destroy it or enact your "final solution".

Yup. You are nuts. First they create the state of Israel, the anti-semitic bunch, and then in a fit of anti-semitism, they give it to the Jews! And all that so they can pass resolutions against Israel when it goes berserk later! Talk about sneaky!! Why, those clever anti-semites! They created it in order to destroy it! Oh, by the way, "semite" is a member of "group of people using semitic language", which includes Palestinians as well as most Arabs and some North Africans. Your head will probably explode upon discovering that.

You don't even know how many people were killed in Vietnam after we finally withdrew (estimates are 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 killed by Pol Pot's regime after we withdrew; war deaths were lower than that)

It would be funny if it wasnt so pathetic watching you whine. Pol Pot came to power

Re:Just goes to show

[robocrop]

You are nuts. I say "no" and in the next of your replies I get "so you said yes!".

No, you say "I was wrong, but ..." and expect the "but" to matter. You were wrong. Just admit it.

From George Washington University [gwu.edu] Cuban Missile Crisis site:

How typical of a conspiracy theorist to find one source that he can distort to back up his ridiculous position, and ignore all other evidence.

Even looking at the source you provide, two facts become very clear:

- You discontinue your shallow analysis at the point at which the US installed missiles in Turkey. Thus, obviously in your analysis this is the cause - you refuse to consider any other factors (the conduct of the Soviet Union following WWII, the construction of the Berlin Wall, the massacare of millions of innocent Germans, Kruschev's posturing, etc). If you start your account of history with an action by one party, by your account everything is a result of that action. But this is only because you are distorting the truth.

- The source you cite doesn't actually back your position. Note the following excerpts:
Guidelines for OPERATION MONGOOSE
and
Although Kennedy never formally authorized an invasion
So you are stating that an action that was never taken was the provocation? Even more hilarious is that this source states:
Cuban intelligence had infiltrated the CIA's exile groups
So, obviously, there was a real threat about which to be concerned. But since you're pro-USSR (only because you're anti-USA), this is all okay to you.

You will forgive me if I take their analysis over your incomprehensible, unsubstantiated, delusional fabrications

I'm interested to know - which parts do you think were fabrications? That the USSR slaughtered millions of innocent Germans after WWII in an act of "retributive justice" (this is thoroughly documented - I suggest you look up the words "Berlin Airlift" for starters)? That the USSR erected the Berlin Wall (I suggest you pay a visit to reality for that one)? That Kruschev did not wish to expand control of the USSR?

First they create the state of Israel, the anti-semitic bunch, and then in a fit of anti-semitism, they give it to the Jews! And all that so they can pass resolutions against Israel when it goes berserk later!

Actually Israel was created under pressure by the major controlling nations who were the fledgling nation's allies. Since then the UN has become decidedly anti-semitic and specifically anti-Israel. Perhaps you haven't heard of Israel's "Test Resolution"? The Israelis proposed a resolution to protect Israeli children from terrorism. The UN had just approved a similar proposal from Egypt to protect Palestinian children. Yet Egypt then led opposition to the Israeli resolution. The entire Non-Aligned Movement (led by Egypt) did their best to sabotage this document with amendments and changes. Israel pulled it because their point had been made.

And don't you just love when pedantry backfires? Yes, "semite" does mean "member of a group of Semitic-speaking individuals." But the term "anti-semitic" is defined as "discrimination against or hostility towards Jews". You might also be interested to know that while the word "kill" means to take the life of, "kilometer" does not mean to take the life of a meter.

Pol Pot came to power because you bombed Cambodia and destablized it!

Yes, this is true. And I have never stated otherwise. Nixon - who few Americans will try to say was a good president - unwisely decided to bomb Cambodia due to a perceived Communist threat. This created the situation for Pol Pot to rise to power (much like all of our nations created Hitler and the Nazis by our ridiculous demands after WWI).

My point in bringing up Vietnam is that after the war was over, there was no international effort to stop the genocide committed by the Khmer Rouge. The world sat back and watched. Just as you wanted to

Re:Just goes to show

[IgnoramusMaximus]

How typical of a conspiracy theorist to find one source that he can distort to back up his ridiculous position, and ignore all other evidence.

Oh drats! You found us out! Me and ol' George's academic staff are in on it together! Shhhh! Tell noone!

You discontinue your shallow analysis at the point at which the US installed missiles in Turkey. Thus, obviously in your analysis this is the cause - you refuse to consider any other factors (the conduct of the Soviet Union following WWII, the construction of the Berlin Wall, the massacare of millions of innocent Germans, Kruschev's posturing, etc). If you start your account of history with an action by one party, by your account everything is a result of that action. But this is only because you are distorting the truth.

I also neglected to consider the position of Uranus and all its sattelites at the time, the edicts of King Richard the 1st and the fashion sense of Katarina The Great. The specific question we were discussing was Cuban Missile Crisis. Not what Stalin ate for breakfast on May the 7th in 1934. If the question was "who was the first to draw blood, the USSR or the West" the answer is ... the West. You see, when the 1918 Bolshevik Revolution against the Tzar and his buddies occured with the subsequent civil war, the USA (and others, including Canada - then still under British command) sent (using an excuse of "rescuing" Czech troops) an expeditionary force to "limit" the Bolsheviks in the East and if possible to put them down. The US troops actually fought the Red Army. On Russian soil. Using bullets too. Real ones. People got killed dead. There is your "first punch". Since you asked, I am only pleased to oblidge. And you are welcome!

[pathetic attempts at ridicule of the GWU research snipped]

Your credentials in this regard as compared to the GWU researchers are nil. Zippo. Nada. You are only making yourself look more idiotic by trying to refute them. If you have problems with that research, email the contact on that page, I am sure as soon as you provide appropriate historical evidence, they will update their findings in your favor. Until then, you just make me laugh.

I'm interested to know - which parts do you think were fabrications?

The parts dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis being percipitated by the Berlin Wall for example.

That the USSR slaughtered millions of innocent Germans after WWII in an act of "retributive justice" (this is thoroughly documented - I suggest you look up the words "Berlin Airlift" for starters)?

This is quite a study in hipocrisy here. Perheaps you never heard of bombing of Dresden? As to USSR slaughtering "millions of innocent Germans" neither you or I have any right to pass any sort of moral judgement on a nation who lost over 20 million people to the German Army, an army which commited unspeakable acts of evil against truly innocent (as in not complicit in Hitler's plan) civilians in their campaign. Having said that, I never heard of any mass murder of German civilians after the WWII by the USSR and the Berlin Airlift was due to isolation of West Berlin geographically within East Germany, who in an escalation of tit-for-tat bravado, refused passage to trains from West Germany. Perheaps you will be so kind as to provide some info on this "retributive justice" phenomenon with millions of dead German civilians everywhere.

That the USSR erected the Berlin Wall (I suggest you pay a visit to reality for that one)?

Actually, it was East Germany who asked for and got the wall.

That Kruschev did not wish to expand control of the USSR?

Now this is pretty funny. Khrustchev?! How about this. Something about "peaceful coexistence", visits to the USA etc.

Re:Just goes to show

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Oh and I almost forgot.

Actually Israel was created under pressure by the major controlling nations who were the fledgling nation's allies.

I see UN was "good" when it was helping Israel...

Since then the UN has become decidedly anti-semitic and specifically anti-Israel.

And then it was "bad" because it criticised Israel...

Not because Israel fucked up and deserved it .... nooooo! It was the UN that has changed! The definition of being "good" is to be pro-Israel according to you! Fuckwit.

Perhaps you haven't heard of Israel's "Test Resolution"? The Israelis proposed a resolution to protect Israeli children from terrorism. The UN had just approved a similar proposal from Egypt to protect Palestinian children.

This is the most audacious high-flying mis-representing bullshit ever conceived. One had to do with nearly every Palestinian child living in poverty under occupation and the other with an attempt to portray Israel as a victim.

Yet Egypt then led opposition to the Israeli resolution. The entire Non-Aligned Movement (led by Egypt) did their best to sabotage this document with amendments and changes. Israel pulled it because their point had been made.

No. They pulled it when it became obvious that it would pass when only the part about "protecting children from violence" was left and not the "we Israeli are poor innocent victims of Evil Palestinians" one tied skillfully to the other. It is a classic stunt of pro-Israel dis-information and deceit, you surely were not expecting me to take your bullshit at face value, were you?

And don't you just love when pedantry backfires? Yes, "semite" does mean "member of a group of Semitic-speaking individuals." But the term "anti-semitic" is defined as "discrimination against or hostility towards Jews".

No it is not. Some militant Jews merely succesfully (by much repetition and propaganda) appropriated the term "semite" to mean themselves, in an attempt to marginalize Arabs.

You might also be interested to know that while the word "kill" means to take the life of, "kilometer" does not mean to take the life of a meter.

"kill" and "kilo" have little in common with each other and nothing whatsoever with the discussion on hand.

And one last thing. Since you called me a "coward" for not supporting your insanity, I would like to point out who the true coward is around here. Since it is your dearest conviction that what the USA is doing in Iraq is just and noble, why the fuck are you on Slashdot and not in the Marines? Unless your next post comes from Falluja, I have to assume that you are just a yellowbelly, big-mouth, chickenshit who is all there to agitate and wave the flag as long it is other people who go do the dying and maiming.

Re:Just goes to show

[robocrop]

Oh drats! You found us out! Me and ol' George's academic staff are in on it together! Shhhh! Tell noone!

It's rather transparent for, when you have no reply - when you've essentially been pointed out for your millionth misleading statement - you to attempt to divert discussion with sarcasm and mockery.

My statement was not that you had entered into a conspiracy with GW. It was that - as a conspiracy theorist and anti-US nutjob - you selectively edited a statement, ignoring all other sources, to fit your presupposed conclusion. Again, you can offer no rebuttal to this other than mockery.

I also neglected to consider the position of Uranus and all its sattelites at the time, the edicts of King Richard the 1st and the fashion sense of Katarina The Great.

Unfortunately the tactic doesn't become any more convincing the more you use it.

The specific question we were discussing was Cuban Missile Crisis

Actually, no. The specific "question", as you put it, is "was the Soviet Union a real threat, or is it an imaginery boogeyman created by the evil United States?". We got onto the Cuban Missile Crisis as one of many points I offered which completely refuted your idiotic statement that the USSR wasn't a real threat to the world. Once faced with this proof that the USSR was a real threat, one that definitely had visions of world conquest and dominance, you abandoned your (admittedly hopeless) position and started trying to say that the USSR was only a threat because the US made it one. When I listed numerous acts of aggression by the USSR against other world powers, including war crimes, you then attempted to equivocate those acts by showing how - at some point in the past - the US had done something that you deemed equally offensive. But my point has been fully made: it takes two to tango, and the USSR was most definitely a real threat to the world. One we faced down and defeated.

You see, when the 1918 Bolshevik Revolution against the Tzar and his buddies occured with the subsequent civil war, the USA (and others, including Canada - then still under British command) sent (using an excuse of "rescuing" Czech troops) an expeditionary force to "limit" the Bolsheviks in the East and if possible to put them down.

I also find it interesting how in one paragraph you attempt to ridicule me for going back to WWII and listing acts of aggression by the Soviet Union, then you go back to 1918 to show acts of aggression by British, Canadian, and US forces against the Soviet Union.

But as long as you're dragging up history: you are aware that the Bolshevik Revolution occurred after the February Revolution of 1917, in which starving citizens who rioted due to food shortages and lack of employment were forcibly put down by military? The military then revolted - many not wanting to shoot civilians - and the resulting instability led to the Bolshevik Revolution.

We are talking about the brutal oppression of people, a number of them into starvation. This was the result of Communist forces attempting to expand control. Of course the Allies (not just the Americans and a few Canadians, as you put it, but by your own source the British, French, Italian, Canadian, Chinese, Japanese, and American s) fought with the Whites against the Bolsheviks.

But, to use your own "logic" - we're not talking about the Bolsheviks.

Your credentials in this regard as compared to the GWU researchers are nil.

Actually you know nothing of my credentials. But, in any case, the research is not my own. I suggest you do a search on the Internet.

The parts dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis being percipitated by the Berlin Wall for example.

Then this is our problem - you're simply too ignorant to be able to comprehend written text. I did not say that the Berlin Wall precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis. I said that the Berlin Wall was an example of the USSR's desire to delineate and extend their own control, a strong ind

Re:Just goes to show

[robocrop]

I see UN was "good" when it was helping Israel...And then it was "bad" because it criticised Israel...

I find it interesting that someone who seems very adamant about the 'rightness' of the UN and the 'wrongness' of Israel knows so little about both. So how about a history lesson? You can confirm all I say below with a little research. Get your parents to help you if you must.

The United Nations began with the London Declaration in 1941. The declaration was signed by Britain, Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and the exiled governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia. Charles de Gaulle also signed. The US signed after we went to war with Germany and Japan, and the Soviet Union later signed as well.

In 1944 Roosevelt began campaigning for the UN to become a strong international body and to have actual power. In September 1944 representatives of the Soviet Union, Britain, the US, and China, setup the basic parameters of the UN. This was cemented at the Yalta conference where it was decided that the controlling members of the UN would be US, the Soviet Union, Britain, China, and France.

The UN charter was created by 50 member nations (too numerous to list, I suggest you use the Internet). The Palestinians and Jews had been fighting from 1920 to 1947 over territorial control. In 1948 the British asked the UN to intervene; a special UN committee decided that a separate Jewish state should be created.

On May 14, 1948, Israel became an independent state. Immediately Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt launched attacks on what they refused to recognize as Israel. You might be interested to know that your precious Soviet Union actually supplied the arms to Israel to fight this war - precisely because they expected to be able to expand their influence to Israel!

Since its creation the UN has ballooned into 190 countries, many of which have substantial Arab influence (including the original states listed above). 54 of the countries are Arab or Muslim, and vote unilaterally. The Third World bloc tends to vote against Israel because they see it as a "colonial state". You state that the UN is against Israel because "Israel fucked up", but this simply is not the case. Arab nations were against its creation and have wanted to annhialiate it since its inception. They have simply gained backing. Nearly two-thirds of all General Assembly and Security Council resolutions passed since the founding of the UN in 1945 have been anti-Israel. Additionally, Israel is the only UN member that is never allowed to hold a seat on the Security Council.

This is the most audacious high-flying mis-representing bullshit ever conceived. One had to do with nearly every Palestinian child living in poverty under occupation and the other with an attempt to portray Israel as a victim

And that certainly sounds like a level-headed, objective evaluation of the proposal.

No. They pulled it when it became obvious that it would pass when only the part about "protecting children from violence" was left and not the "we Israeli are poor innocent victims of Evil Palestinians" one tied skillfully to the other. It is a classic stunt of pro-Israel dis-information and deceit, you surely were not expecting me to take your bullshit at face value, were you?

Well, then, why don't we look at the original resolution. This is an almost exact copy of the earlier approved resolution to protect Palestinian children. The Israeli resolution was killed by the Non-Aligned Movement. To summarize the changes:

The list of amendments, cosponsored by Bahrain, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, included deleting of the phrase "Israeli children" from the text and replacing it with "Middle East children," and inserting references to Israeli "military assaults," "occupation" and ""excessive use of f

first canadian post

[Anonymous Coward]

this post in private and may not be read by the FBI.

Does this mean

[Timesprout]

We can expect to see a massive farting extravaganza as Terence and Philip sort out the US?

Re:Does this mean

[badasscat]

We can expect to see a massive farting extravaganza as Terence and Philip sort out the US?

Or just an entire country falling asleep. At least according to the submitter.

(Weary/wary is a pet peeve of mine... it's not just a misspelling, the two words mean completely different things.)

Re:Does this mean

[pboulang]

(Weary/wary is a pet peeve of mine... it's not just a misspelling, the two words mean completely different things.)

Umm.... same with there/their/they're or lose/loose or then/than. In fact, I am having trouble finding a misspelling that has two words that mean SIMILAR things.

Raise/raze
Altar/alter
it's/its
Accept/except
principle/principal
Nope, none of these

maybe you could give an example of a word that when commonly misspelled has a meaning similar to the original word?

Re:Does this mean

[jc42]

... a word that when commonly misspelled has a meaning similar to the original word?

One of the senses of "capital" is somewhat similar to "capitol". They are both the top or head of something (a column, a government). Both are derived from the Latin for "head", of course.

Re:Does this mean

[smithmc]

maybe you could give an example of a word that when commonly misspelled has a meaning similar to the original word?

Well, the meanings of "effect" and "affect" are least related, if not actually similar...

Re:Does this mean

[Mattintosh]

The words "ensure" and "insure" are listed as synonyms in most dictionaries.

Re:Does this mean

[pboulang]

Then how do you know that there was a misspelling? ;)

In fact, is this case one of those in which usage is used so interchangably that the meaning follows suit? (example: "I could care less" should really be "I *couldn't* care less") Ahh, the ever evolving language is always fun to look at.

s/Weary/Wary/

[franl]

'nuf said.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[gowen]

I crossed from the US to Canada once, (I'm a Brit) and the toughest question the Canadian authorities (represented by a young female border guard) asked me was "Do you know you have the loveliest accent?"

Canadians rule.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[SenseiLeNoir]

Seconded...

I am also a brit, and the one thing i really love about Canada is the way it merged the Best of Britain, America and Europe into a country.

It is certainly intresting how Canada is more socialist than even Britain sometimes, and its a good thing, when you also see how its run, and the kind nature of the people.

I am not dissing Americans either, American citizens are really nice too. But I see the attitudes of the people not nessasarily reflected in aspects of the administrative procedures, which really can ruin a hoilday by a tourist.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[IWannaBeAnAC]

... and the USA's isn't???

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[gowen]

If you think that a functioning welfare state providing a safety net for the poor constitutes state socialism, and think that having to register gun ownership is an infringement of your basic human rights ... I recommend that you move to the USA.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Grey Ninja]

Just lucky you aren't Canadian. I find that I usually just get waved through American customs (travelling and going about my business in the US is another story though), but on my way back, I get interrogated by Canadian customs. Luckily for you though, they only really act that way towards fellow Canadians. ;-)

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[TheRaven64]

Do you really think that owning a firearm protects you against a police state? Honestly? The amount and type of firepower available to the US military are so far in excess of those available to the civilian population[1] that you stand no chance at all if the military were to be used to quell a popular uprising. Not to mention the fact that it is far more likely that a modern totalitarian state would rely far more heavily on the control of information than the control of firepower (dead people don't make good serfs, after all).

[1] Unless I'm mistaken and you can own IR / RADAR hybrid missiles, and your own SDI system and nuclear deterrent.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[lphuberdeau]

I think your forgetting about the hundreds (thousands?) of billions the US has in debt for various reasons, including the Bush wars.

Canada has debts too, because they decided at some point to develop infrastructures and improve life quality of the citizens. Now they are trying to pay it off.

Did all those bombs bring you inner peace?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[kantai]

Are you aware of the term "From my cold dead hands?"

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[qw(name)]

You forgot one:

Borderline socialist state

Free speech is systematically being taken away from the people. Far more so that here in US. When a person can be legally arrested for being "politically incorrect" a huge red flag should go up. Unfortunately, that's the direction the US is headed...

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[geminidomino]

Which one were you in?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably don't want to hear it, but you're probably best off in the US with your stated priorities.

Canada: Even after the last few years, the US has much stronger free speech protections than Canada (and if anything the gap is growing). You're also already aware of their gun laws. Not sure what the school system is like.

Australia: Gun laws would probably rule it out for you (makes Canada look like the Wild West). Otherwise fairly free, and a decent school system.

New Zealand: If you're considering Canada, consider NZ. Better civil liberties, similar gun laws, decent school system (especially at a secondary level, rather less so at university level).

Britain: Uh, no. The gun laws of Australia, the free speech issues of Canada, an odd mania for CCTV cameras in public places, and some nasty security laws for bonus points. Plus some nice structural issues - the details of how the recent fox hunting ban was passed are depressing. Oh, and the educational system is decrepit and bankrupt. Lovely.

US: Good gun laws. Very strong civil liberties. Awful secondary education system. *shrug* 2/3 ain't bad. (And as for the draft - dude, seriously, there's this great new interweb thingy you should check out. Start with google.)

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[packeteer]

They attacked the WTC because it was a shining example of freedom, but they hate all christians, and intend to kill us all. no matter how cowardly you are, or where you run and hide.

Bahahahaha... riiiiiight...

Who knows why they attacked the WTC but i would guess thats not why. Maybe it was beucase it was the symbol of their oppression. A symbol of our power over them? They do not hate all christains. They do not want all christains dead. Look at some of the laws put in place in Iraq and other countires with the purpose of raping their economy so a few thousand people sitting in towering office buildings can get rich.

I find it conveniant that you talk about your family as having fought in every war. Thats very nice and all but i would like to think that we dont give any extra credit to someone's opinion ebcuase of what their family did. What if your family owned slaves? Should that follow you everywhere?

BTW nice job calling "Muhamad (ewww) Ali" a coward, nice touch.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Steepe]

I said. DS1 = Desert Storm.. version 1991.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[packeteer]

Well keeping your guns is less of an actual deterant to an oppressive government and more of an indicator of when one is happening. A million armed people trying to start an uprising can be put down with far less disinformation and media control than fighting them back. This doesn't mean that guns should be banne either becuase obviously once the bill of rights starts getting overturned thats a sign as i said before. So basically keep your guns but please stop acting as if they will really do anything. As for the grandparent if oyu really want to keep your kids safe you might have to give up those guns. Sounds pretty lame but it sounds like what your facing.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[j0e_average]

Are you kidding? Canada had the opportunity to get the best of three countries...the technology of the US, the culture of the British, and the cuisine of the French.

Instead, they ended up with the culture of the US, the cuisine of the British, and the technology of the French!

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Monx]

Remind me again how DS1 had anything to do with our freedom.

Also, don't forget which "freedom loving" nation put Hussein in power and gave him the only WMD he ever had. How many dictatorships have we established over the years?

Have you ever heard of the School of the Americas? The US is directly responsible for most of the torture and brutality that went on in Latin America in the 20th century. I have family on the receiving end of the results of those wonderful lessons in "freedom."

I don't beat up random people, that does not make me a coward. Learn some history before you go shooting your mouth (and your guns) off again.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Hognoxious]

1776: muskets vs muskets.

2005: SUV vs M1 Abrams.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Goth Biker Babe]

They attact the WTC because it's a big fuck off building in NYC and so will get them noticed and kudos with their supporters.

As for the islam, christian thing, I personally think that people who believe all the shit need their heads examined and if we banned religion around the world it would be a whole lot nicer place. I have friends who are christian or muslems and they are nice people. They get on well with one another too. Unfortunately there is a minority of loonies which messes it up for everyone else and the only way stop that is to ban the whole thing.

The thing that I loath most is that I am being lumped in with these loonies because the people speaking loudest are pushing the religion thing all the time. I hate Blair for kissing Bush's butt because we then get tarred with the religious brush and as a nation Britain isn't. In fact if a politian started using religion in campaging his career would be cut short because he wouldn't be trusted any more.

What is it that Bill Bailey says. "Britain is great. It's constitutionally a christian country, it's socially a secular one and when asked in a poll what religion they are most Brits would reply, Jedi!".

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[InsaneGeek]

Actually the US has just as good a safety net for the poor (I've read a number of articles that the say $ quantity of support is even more), but it's the middle class in the US is where they remove the support. From a state benefit perspective the poor aren't in a bad shape, the people on the lower-middle class bracket are where the safety net end in the US and continues in Canada (med bills, mortgage, layoff, etc for this non-poor but non-wealthy group can get painful)

And you also have to register your gun in the US too.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[CrimsonAvenger]

1776: muskets vs muskets 2005: 100,000,000 rifles vs 200,000 rifles + tanks and artillery.

And this assuming that the Army would be 100% behind the government - it wasn't during the Civil War (Remember, Bobby Lee was offered command of the Union Army before he took command of the Confederate Army).

Most likely it would be 100,000,000 rifles + tanks and artillery vs 200,000 rifles + tanks and artillery.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[nosferatu1001]

Ah, for you patriotism means mindlessly following whatever the republicans say I'm guessing here....

They destroyed the WTC cos of your foreign policies. You are too idiotic to realise that American raping of the world caused the world to hate you back.

Now back to Fox "News" you go, and the blinkers can go nicely back on...

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Ed_Moyse]

1st off, Yes, they do hate all christians, each and every single one. Apparently you don't pay attention to anything. Al coward has also said many times they attacked the WTC because it was a shining example of "money hungry capitalists"

That is hilarious! Since when does christian equal capitalist?!? I strongly, strongly suspect that Jesus (assuming he existed) would have been appalled by the lack of morality of corporate america (corporations being the most extreme example of capitalism, forced by law as they are to consider profit above everything else).

Also, it's possible to disagree with the "war against terror", and thus to not want to serve in the army and to not be a coward. In some cases that would take more courage than just following orders.

It's also possible to disagree with the decisions of your government and not to be a traitor. It's tolerance that makes the western world (in my opinion) better than some of the more extreme examples in the middle east, and it's tolerance for other viewpoints that you seem to lack.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[pjt33]

At least they've got good food, then.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Ed_Moyse]

Sorry - messed up the quoting... the first paragraph was from not-so-bright GI Joe (in case anyone didn't work it out)

Ed

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[gowen]

the US remains the last truly free country.

Unless you want to:
i) pay for sex
ii) smoke marijuana
iii) marry (or have a legal union with) someone of your own gender
iv) implement a number of simple mathematical algorithms in software
v) have a telephone conversation without risk of government surveillance
vi) travel internally on an aeroplane without ID....

I could go on. The US is the the last truly free country, as long as you define "free" as "free to do those things the government, in its wisdom, allow you to do".

Exactly like every other Western Democracy.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Pig Hogger]

Funny, that did not happen when I crossed it along with somebody from South-Africa...

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[hodet]

" Canada has ridiculous gun laws. I guess they only want their violent criminals to own guns. They are well on the way to outlawing Christianity through BS 'hate crime legislation.' Love or hate the Patriot Act, the US remains the last truly free country."

Dude, you need to stop getting all your information from Fox News.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[mtrupe]

You didn't respond to the gun law legislation and outlawing of certain religions in Canada.

I'll take what little remains of my religious freedom and stay in the US.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Rod Beauvex]

Your ancestors were wussies!


I'm so sick of hearing "You're a coward for moving to Canada". Get a new mantra.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[gowen]

I'll take what little remains of my religious freedom and stay in the US.

Cool. That's your lifestyle choice. I never said my country was better than yours. I just said that yours isn't better, or freer (in any objective sense), than mine.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[mikelieman]

Every try to get a handgun lawfully in the City of Albany, New York?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Gonoff]

Let me respond then.
Having less guns around in Canada, UK and many other countries is another point to indicate that they have more freedom than the USA!
If someone gets shot on the street in the UK, it is major news. Over a year ago, 2 girls were shot in Birmingham. It is still in the news.
How many people were shot in Birmingham Alabama last year? Are many of them still in the news?
Less Guns = less bullets = less killed.
More guns != more safety.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[gowen]

My dad has no arms and legs, you insensitive clod!

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Hognoxious]

Meat pies, I really missed those when I was in the former USA.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[schon]

Very strong civil liberties

You mean like the right for gays to marry the person they love?

You crack me up sometimes.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Ubergrendle]

Personal gun ownership to thwart an oppressive government is a quaint concept, but has no basis in fact.

Widespread availability of guns makes it easier for 'tyranny of the majority'. Misuse of guns by a majority in the pursuit of a socially accepted goal (e.g. "kill all the jewish businessmen!" or "lynch that black kid, he might have committed a crime") tends to be overlooked by the authorities.

The best way to measure the success of a democracy is how effectively it protects human rights, and typcially those most at risk are the 'weakest' members of the society.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[TOWebstress]

Don't forget being able to freely file-share music in Canada. It's protected under the law here.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't respond to the gun law legislation and outlawing of certain religions in Canada.

Gun law is only an issue in the USA, where a lot of people are afwaid the nashty gowwerment's gonna come and take all their ickle toys awway. Outside the USA nobody gives a fuck about whether you need a permit for a gun or not, because it doesn't make the slightest difference to their life.

Only in the USA is "owning a gun" considered a more important human right than the rights to life, a fair trial, etc.

As for the "outlawing of religions"... what the fuck are you smoking? Nobody has outlawed any religions in Canada. Not even Christianity. "Hate speech" legislation does not prevent Christians from saying "Muslims worship a false god and we believe they will spend an eternity in hell". It merely prevents Christians from saying "kill all the Muslims so they'll get to hell sooner". That's not outlawing anyone's religion.

It might theoretically be considered "removing a freedom". But it's just as easy to argue that a Muslim's fundamental right not to be the target of hate speech is just as deserving of protection as a Christian's "fundamental right" to say things that no sane person would consider it reasonable to say.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Pig Hogger]

Instead, they ended up with the culture of the US, the cuisine of the British, and the technology of the French!

If only we HAD french technology. Fastest trains in the world... Cars that ride like on a cloud on bad roads (Citroen suspensions)... Having been wired for almost 25 years (Minitel)... But no, we've got instead the dumb american technology that's driven by bean-counters and MBAs instead of engineers...

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Pig Hogger]

Canada has ridiculous gun laws. I guess they only want their violent criminals to own guns.
They are well on the way to outlawing Christianity through BS 'hate crime legislation.'

Outlawing guns is the reason why Canada has a much lower violent crime rate than the US.
As for christianity, well, if we can eradicate whatever christian religion (we'd like to know which so we could adjust our laws to be more effective) fosters hate crimes, so much the better.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Pig Hogger]

Do you really think that owning a firearm protects you against a police state?

Saddam Hussein, right before his downfall, gave guns left and right to everybody who would carry one, for free.
So, indeed, having everyone have a gun does not prevent dictatorships... (Unless, of course, the US was jealous of the irakis' freedom)...

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[LuSiDe]

Freedom and government are mutually exclusive since the government uses laws to tell the individual what they may not do. Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'free country'. The only element which makes it regarded as 'free' from the point of view of the people who have democratic power over that country is wether they're satisfied with the set of rules (the law) which is provided hence as a result also being satisfied over the remaining 'freedom'. Now, I'm Dutch, and i would probably not happy with the set of rules provided in the USA.

And guess what? I don't have that democratic power over the USA. Hence, if the USA has laws over *me* which force *me* to do things which have little to nothing to do with the USA (like here in this topic we discuss) its easily regarded as opression (remember that PATRIOT doesn't follow the classic "innocent until proven"). Unfortunately, some Americans somehow don't understand that viewpoint...

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Hektor_Troy]

That's not socialist, you ignorant fuck (pardon the swearing)!

That is called Authoritarian - look it up.

It's amazing that people in the US in particular buy into lame ass conceptions - like liberal being the bane of the US, even though the founding fathers were VERY liberal.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[static0verdrive]

It's a good demonstration to the US on why to avoid the socialist trap :->. Canada's economy is in a mess :->

HA! HAHA! You mean no one told you about how our economy is doing WAY better than yours! Besides - WTF does politics have to with economy (unless the politics are dictating taking over other countries' economies... but that is for another "ani-american political ideals" post). Americans are great - their political policies make them akin to the socially inept guy at parties that no one wants to talk to.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[mtrupe]

1. "Guns should not just be purchaseable all willy-nilly. Most gun violence (at least in Canada), that people fear, is high-school/young adults who turn to gang violence/crime. These laws are largely in place to keep guns out of their hands. Also to make it more punishable if they do get caught with one. Obviously any adult who REALLY wants a gun will get one no matter what." We have similar laws in the US. 2. I'm not attacking you because of Bill O'Reilly. I don't even watch him. Some people are Conservative. Get over it. In fact, there are many of us, which is why Bush got more votes than any President in history. Freedom must never become conditional. Please, listen people, its not for you to decide what is "hate speech" and what is not. Canadians have accepted a government bent on punishing hateful thought and speech. I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot say. http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[gmack]

If your going to bash Canada at least be well informed. The hate crime legislation only affects religions if they actively promote violance against identifiable groups; if it were otherwise it would be thrown out by the courts for violating our right to religious expression as defined in our constitution. The only times I recall it ever being used against a member of any religion was either neo Nazi's pretending to be Christians or more recently a Moslem cleric who was caught on tape preaching that all Jews should be killed (radio interview no less).

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[vze3try7]

Steepe, you are a fucking idiot. It is people like you that give Amerikkka a bad name.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[udowish]

I see once again you know nothing about the country! I like the fact that Yankees are totally jealous of what we have up here and it shows time and time again

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[JoAnywhere]

Ahh - so the definition of a free country is now that you allow everyone to have guns (sometimes you get them free when you open a bank account), and that you do nothing to enforce tough penalties for 'hate crimes'. Well... the second point strikes me as odd. Many US states have hate crime legislation and I haven't noticed any lessening of the influence by the Christians in the US. By your definition also, New Zealand is not a free country which strikes me as truly offensive, highly ignorant, and wildly inaccurate. Which country did you say you were from again?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Aeron65432]

And if you think that the government should decide where you go to school, where you get your healthcare, and what you should do with your money, I recommend that you move to Canada.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[araemo]

In fact, there are many of us, which is why Bush got more votes than any President in history.
Funny, I thought he got more votes than any president in history for the same reason kerry did.. There were more voters than any presidential election in history.

I really get peeved when people try and claim an overwhelming majority(Not necessarily your claim) of americans voted for bush since he got 'more votes than any president in history'.. So did his opponent who lost.

Now then.. about hate crimes, and hate speach legislation? Speach should be protected. Any action resulting from such hate speach should be harshly prosecuted. And what I think 'hate speach' legislation is usefull for, is getting rid of people who repeatedly whip up sentiment against a particular group, but never personally attack them physically.. they just get impressionable young people to do it for them. You can say what you want, as long as you are prepared for the consequences of your speach. And I'd prefer if laws were passed for that rather than lynch mobs roaming the streets to string up those 'preachers'.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[mtrupe]

Its a crime to hurt or kill somebody. You think we should instead punish motivation?

Hate crime legislation makes no sense. Its merely an attempt to legislate thought.

I was shocked that kids these days don't respect the 1st amendment, but one only need look at the comments on Slashdot to realze how pathetically real this sad trend is.

Free speech means even that which you happen to disagree with must be free--- even that which sounds hateful and bigoted must be free!
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[operagost]

We used to have cars with Citroen suspensions in the 1970s -- they were called "full-size sedans." But we decided we'd rather have a car that didn't make us seasick or lean 45 degrees in a turn. The French, with their superior technology, figured out how to fit this same poor handling and gut-wrenching wallowing into a small car. Pure genius!

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[avandesande]

all those wonderful armaments depend on one thing... fuel. It would be very easy for a few people to cut off the supply of fuel to the goverment through sabotage... then the playing field is level.
there are more dedicated gun nuts in the usa than anywhere in the world.
the iragi 'insurgents' are not dedicated gun nuts.
for more info go to http://www.fcsa.org/

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[InadequateCamel]

We don't have less guns in Canada, we are frigging gun nuts! The difference is that we tend not to use them on each other, as indicated by the homicide rate in my province (typically around 1 per capita)

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[autophile]

as indicated by the homicide rate in my province (typically around 1 per capita)

Uh... wouldn't that mean everybody's dead?

--Rob

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[JoAnywhere]

Hate Crime Legisalation seeks to distinguish between crimes of passion, crimes of self defense and crimes of hatred thats all. I'm not saying its a good or bad thing, I am saying that it hardly defines a free country

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[InadequateCamel]

Christ I need sleep.

Per 100,000.
Thanks

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[GaepysPike]

I really hate to throw more fuel on this "us-versus-you guys" debate, but....

You mean no one told you about how our economy is doing WAY better than yours!

This comment is totally bunk. But according to the numbers, the size, producing power, and sheer stability of the U.S. economy is several times that of Cananda (in fact as far as producing power, greater than all of Europe put together). Across all the provinces of Canada, the employment rate is solidly above 7.0, in BC actually up at 8.2. (that's compared to 5.2 in Dec 2004 for the U.S).

Your personal income tax rates are through the roof (up there with us in fact, which says something), and what do you have to show for it? It certainly isn't helping your failing socialized health-care system you guys love to brag about (it's deep in financial problems, and for what? The quality of care is significantly lower than here in the U.S: Here.)

And finally...

WTF does politics have to with economy

It's funny that we are the inept ones here... go take an economics course, throw in some poli-sci for good measure, and come back when it finally dawns on you that ALL these issues are intimately connected to politics.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

Canada does not have "ridiculous" gun laws. I own six personally. To get a gun you have to go on course, nowadays they call is the "Firearms safety course" it teaches you basic gun safety for all long guns, at the end you write a test, you pass the test - you can buy guns with your new license. The license is renewable without further testing. You want handguns, you stay a little longer in the course for the "Prohibited" weapons part, you write a second test, now you can own handguns.

To go Hunting, you need to go on a hunting course, it's called "Hunter Safety" and among other things teaches you about different types of wildlife, how to tell them apart from other wildlife, how to protect yourself and how to avoid shooting other people. You pass the course, you get a license. Pretty simple.

Since we do not allow concealed weapons here in Canada, in order to use your handgun you have to have a range membership and transport is only allowed between your place of residence and the range. That isn't that bad. Up here we use long guns primarily for hunting, and there are no further travel restrictions on those except they have to have trigger locks and be out of sight at all times while travelling. It's not that big of a deal really.

What people get into a hff about is the new "Registration" for guns. It's a little stupid, you have to pay the gov't $25CDN to buy/register/transfer a gun to your name. They then send you a little paper with the serial number (if it's a serialed gun) and make/model/calibre. You haver to carry this paper at all times in case the feds (not the provincials) decide to stop you and question your ownership... Again, not that bad.

Now, if you have over 15 guns the RCMP (feds) can show up at your door at any time and ask to inspect the gun store and ammo store and make sure you are doing things correctly. Again, I own six, I do not find this fifteen limit "surprise raid" thing an issue.

I don't like the feds knowing about each gun I own, but it's not that big of a deal, I use them for hunting, not for causing some armed rebellion.

If anyone has issues about the information I provided, I can provide links if I have to. But anyone who lives in Canada and actually knows the law, and is affected by it knows what I wrote to be true.

Anything you need to know can be found here or here. As for freedom of religion, your issues about "Hate Crimes" are blown way out of proporation. The issue you are referring to is basic civil righs and equality for all. Gay bashing is not a sport, and the churches have this issue with it. I myself have no problems with gay marriage - Canada is founded on freedoms for all, not just freedoms for the church - if the church wants to do something, fine - don't let it infringe on another minority's rights. The issue is the heads of church basically defaming the gay population which is against the law and the rights of gays are held in the same light as say, the rights of jewish people, or arabs not to be defamed or whatever by any other group.

In Canada we protect the rights of everyone, even if some groups like it or not. Seriously, do you think being a Christian gives you the right to bash gays? If you do, you have some predjudices that need to be worked on buddy.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Ced_Ex]

Stick your head into the sand if you want, but you know in your heart that these fundamentalists want nothing more than world domination so they can rid the Earth of people like you.

You're talking about Muslims as a whole. You can't define an entire country by those who lead it. Otherwise, what do you think other nations feel about the US?

You likely have zero idea as to how real Muslims feel. They are truly peace loving people who want nothing more than to be left alone. If you don't believe me, read about this Californian who is riding his motorcycle around the world. He's stopping in places like Israel, and other middle East countries. Never has he encountered "fanatics" that want to kill him. He treats them well, and they return the favour by offering him meals and a place to stay.

Perhaps you need to view the world in a different light.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[justins]

Actually the US has just as good a safety net for the poor (I've read a number of articles that the say $ quantity of support is even more

You would have to measure the effectiveness of the dollars spent for that to have much meaning.

And you also have to register your gun in the US too.

Your state government might require that, mine certainly doesn't.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Ced_Ex]

Remind me again how DS1 had anything to do with our freedom.

Well, not so much our freedom as it was more for the Kuwaitis. I have to agree with going to war then as Kuwait could not defend itself. By allowing Iraq to invade a sovereign nation, it would seem that the world did not care. However, I am glad that once the Iraqi army was defeated, there was no more reason to invade Iraq.

But, DS2, that doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[WoBIX]

Maybe they should have been listening to 'As It Happens' on CBC radio last night (available via Satellite and Shortwave outside Canada.)

They interviewed a pastor who put on a religious play at the public theatre in Pictou, Nova Scotia. The city had denied him a permit because they didn't want a religious morality play, intended to "save" people from being put on in place intended for the general public.

So he put on the play anyway, after notifying the local police of his intentions. The play went on, he was charged (with loitering), and it went to court.

A complaint was filed over violation of the charter of rights regarding religious freedom, and he was immediately vindicated, because under Canadian law you DO have full rights to freedom of religion, provided it does not harm another. The catholic church still refuses to ordain women, and though that might be considered discrimination in any other sector of society, that choice is protected in the Canadian charter of rights.

I'm an atheist, and I have absolutely no use for religion in any form. But I applaud the fact that our government will defend the rights of this pastor so that he may have freedom of religious
expression.

I also applaud the fact that our government is able to separate church and state so that scientists may continue research that religious groups deem morally reprehensible.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[crunk]

Oh really? What is going on in Iraq? We have far superior technology than they do, and they are still able to keep an insurgency going.

And I can tell you have never been to the southern U.S. I live in N.C. and I could tell you without a doubt the rednecks around here would not give in without a fight. Hell, if we were even invaded by another country they wouldn't make it past the Outer Banks let alone places like Georgia and Alabama. Dude, I'm talking _serious_ rednecks.

Remember how the British were crushed by the Americans in the War of 1812 in Louisiana? Andrew Jackson was able to assemble a militia from common men who used their personal rifles.

An armed populous is not such a bad thing.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[justins]

We Canadians apparently have no fucking clue when it comes to border security. I've crossed the border countless times and it's a real joke. The Canadians aren't even armed. These guys are protecting the country and don't have guns.

Guns aren't particularly relevant to what a border guard does. Dogs and computers are a lot more important.

It's not true that they're all unarmed. The guy who comes up to your car might not be armed.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[gowen]

The man put a play on in a theatre, without gaining the theatre owner's permission. In what country is this *not* considered illegal?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[mtrupe]

Being a human grants you the right to bash anyone you feel-- verbally, not physically. That is called free speech.

While I agree with your stance on guns, I cannot agree that people should be restricted from speaking hateful words. You can't have free speech and have it be 'nice' all the time. Bigotry must be free and legal, because the word bigotry means different things to different people.

I don't think calling homosexuality a sin is bigoted, you may. So what--whould I be banned by law from making such a comment?

I guess I always thought free speech would be cherished and appreciated. I am finding I was wrong.

http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Boronx]

Talk to your average right winger about politics and he will turn into a psychotic, with all sorts of scurrilous things to say about liberals, Democrats, Canuckians, Hillary Clinton, the French, anyone that the propaganda box in their house tells them to hate.

But they are very nice at a personal level, which may be why we haven't turned into Rwanda.

I think if Canadians and Brits heard the full brunt of AM talk radio and cable news (CNN America is very different, BTW, than CNN international), things would change very fast.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

The Canadian government is not outlawing Christianity, but there is a disturbing trend away from Free Speech and Freedom of Religion that makes many Christians worry that it may.

One such incident is high school teacher Chris Kempling who was reprimanded and suspended without pay for writing a letter to the editor critical of homosexual behaviour. He wrote this letter as a private citizen and did not share these views in a classroom. Yet he was suspended.

Another such incident was the BCCT's refusal to certify Trinity Western University to train teachers due to requirement that students refrain from "practices which are biblically condemned" including homosexual behaviour. (Along with pre-marital sex & adultery). This was the BCCT's only reason for refusing to certify TWU and they were unable to find a single case of a TWU trained teacher creating a hostile environment for homosexuals. (TWU students were teaching thanks to a 1 year post-degree training course at SFU. Caveat: I went to TWU. The BCCT was forced by the Supreme Court to certify TWU eventually which is one reason why I don't think that Christianity is "being outlawed".

But between high profile events like these and Foreign Minister Pierre Pattigrew's suggestions that religious leaders should stay out of policy debates, (specifically the one over gay marriage), Christians are beginning to get somewhat distrustful that full freedom of religion will be granted to them in the future.

What ever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

Actually being a human gives you no real rights to bash anyone you like. Well, that may be your views, and you may share those with others, but others will respectfully disagree with you, myself included.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada protects free speech, but the anti-hate speech laws trump the Charter, it says to this effect: that it prohibits any speech or text which is "likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt" because of "race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age."

We don't have the first amandement like the states. Up here, being more socialist allows the rights of many to outweigh the rights of the few in special cases.

And calling it a sin is not the issue, it's when the Archdiocese in Toronto not only called them sinners but "evil" and "doing irepperrable harm against children", or maybe that was the pope, whatever.

Again, the whole issue is marriage. There is supposed to be a separation between church and state, in the US you do not see this so much, up here you do. Our Prime Minister is a staunch Catholic but he supports the rights of minorities. Which is good and the way it should be. The problem is when you make defaming statements, that's the problem - calling it a "sin" isn't defaming, calling homosexuals "evil" and "a threat to children" is.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[shaitand]

It's called natural selection. Culling the weak (be it intellectual or physical) is NOT a bad thing.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

Sadly you're right. Hate speech laws do seem to trump the charter. But don't you see a problem with that?

The whole point of free speech is that you allow people to express their viewpoints even when you would dedicate your life to opposing those viewpoints. Calls to violence are different and have always been recognized as different, but that's not what's addressed by Hate Speech laws. I bring that up only to dismiss calls for violence as a red herring with regards to Hate Speech laws.

Hate Speech laws essentially say that a statement about a person or group that will likely make them feel bad or likely cause others to thing badly of them is illegal even if it is never going to cause someone to commit violence. I believe that a restriction like that on free speech is wrong.

For the record... I am a Christian. If you were to bash me as a ignorant fundie who was living in the dark ages and foolishly believed in the big easter bunny in the sky, that would be defaming. If people were convinced by your statement it might cause people to hold me and possibly all Christians in contempt. But you have the right to say that and I will defend your right to say it.

Also for the record... I believe homosexual behaviour to be a sin. I believe that having sexual relations with someone of the same gender is an evil act. I believe that having sexual relations with anyone not your spouse is also a sin and an evil act. I believe these things are offense to God. I believe that homosexual "marriage" is not a right and should not be endorsed by the state. I believe that like all sin homosexual lifestyles are dangerous to all people and harmful. That would include dangerous and harmful to children. (Like all sinful lifestyles).

Now by making those statements have I commited a crime?

Also for the record I believe that God loves all of his creations. I believe that God has called us to love our enemies. He has called us to love those that hate us. He has called us to love people with the self-sacrificing love he showed us when he died for us. Hate has no part in this.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Punko]

Religious organizations should stay out of most political debates, however this particular debate surrounding changing the existing definition of civil marriage does have implications of morality and opinions from the religious community are justified. Christians (and we are obviously talking about the orthodox or hardline segment of the total Christian population) are beginning to get the impression that what they believe to be "full freedom of religion" isn't what is guaranteed in the Constitution. Just because someone once wrote something down, and a bunch of people belived it, doesn't mean that that it ok for everyone. "Freedom of speech" arose from the priciple that anyone should be allowed to voice a POLITICAL opinion without reprocussions. i.e. Saying "The King is a fink" without getting tossed in jail. This principle has been highjacked for decades by those who believe they should be able to say anything and not bear any responsibility for saying it. Hate legislation has been brought in to curtail the abuse of the freedom of speech principle to prevent the nauseating flood of garbage from those that cannot accept the opinion (or existence) of others. You want to live your life according to your religious doctrine? Go for it. You want to curtail my life because it doesn't fit your doctrine? I don't think so.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[madwurm]

Is there not already laws against violent acts in Canada? If so what is the need for hate crime legislation? Sounds like the beginning of prosecuting thought crimes to me. Is it really bad to say someone or some group should be killed if you are only speaking and not actually acting? Do the listeners of these people not have the capability to see though other's hateful words and realize that the actions that would be required to carry out the violent crimes are wrong?

---madwurm

"I can say what I want to... even if i'm not serious" ---MJK

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

"Hate speech" legislation does not prevent Christians from saying "Muslims worship a false god and we believe they will spend an eternity in hell". It merely prevents Christians from saying "kill all the Muslims so they'll get to hell sooner".

Actually that's not true. Prior to the enactment of hate speech laws, saying things like "kill all muslims" was illegal because inciting violence was illegal. Hate Speech laws only make inciting violence illegal in the sense that laws against corporal punishment make it illegal for teachers to murder their students.

Hate Speech laws make it a crime to say anything that is "likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt" because of "race, color, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age." Thank you Dr.Zong. In other words Hate Speech laws make speech illegal entirely on the basis of how the statements make people feel. Not on the basis of any actions.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

If hate crimes leglislation was only used against groups that promote violence why are they necessary at all? Advocating violence was already illegal in Canada. Free Speech never protected you there.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

The problem with hate crime legislation is that it provides extra punishment if your crime was motivated by hatred of any in a set of predefined groups. If the victim wasn't attacked for membership in one of those predefined groups the hate crimes laws don't apply. (even if group membership was the motive for the attack).

That's why Hate Crimes Legislation is poorly thought out. It's an attempt to micro-manage sentencing. Motive should be an issue in sentencing. Membership of the victim in sympathetic group de jour should not be.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[mtrupe]

"And calling it a sin is not the issue, it's when the Archdiocese in Toronto not only called them sinners but "evil" and "doing irepperrable harm against children", or maybe that was the pope, whatever."

If people are not allowed to say such things, then you have NO free speech in Canada. That is sad, very sad.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[MoneyT]

I actualy ran the numbers on this a while back, and they may be off now, but here's a rough idea of what it came out to be.

Assuming that 50% of the US population age 18-50 took up arms.

Assuming that the entirety of the US Armed Forces stayed with the government.

Assuming that 20 citizens die for every 1 soldier. You would still have a few million (can't remember the exact number) armed civilians left, not to mention the rest of the population that didn't take up arms.

Even at a rate of 50 : 1 you still have armed civilians left alive as well as the remaining population.

So to tell the truth, yes, I do beleive that firearms CAN protect against a police state.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[MightyMartian]

Really? That's not how it looks up here. Unemployment is pretty low, government's got quite a bit of cash and is making inroads on our debt. I have no idea where you get your information from.

To me, it looks like the US is the mess right now.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

They attacked the WTC because it was a shining example of freedom, but they hate all christians, and intend to kill us all. no matter how cowardly you are, or where you run and hide. Bahahahaha... riiiiiight... Who knows why they attacked the WTC but i would guess thats not why.

Then you're guessing wrong, (unless you're talking about the choice of target as opposed to why they attacked the US at all).

To be fair though the Wahhabi Muslims don't just hate Christians, they hate everyone who isn't a Muslim. Their stated goal is the destruction of everything that isn't Islamic.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

I don't actually see a problem with Hate Speech Laws trumping the Charter. Free Speech ends when it hurts someone, physically, emotionaly, or mentally. A call to violence is indeed different as it provokes a physical act, but the problem with the heads of church speaking out and calling the gay lifestyle "evil" is that they are (excuse the pun) preaching to the choir. They are community leaders and as such, people listen to them. You speaking out is your own viewpoint, and as much as I think your views are wrong, you are not affecting a bunch of people listening to you intently as a leader of the community.

And your strawman argument, If I were to call you "an ignorant fundie that lived in the dark ages and belives.." (good choice, I like the easter bunny part) that is in no way different than you calling homosexuals evil and sinners! Both acts are defaming, like it or not.

Just because you beleive something that may or may not "come from a higher power" and think that your choice is sanctioned in some way or another because it is written in a book that has no legal standing, and arguable historical accuracy (for the record, I am agnostic, baptised presbyterian mind you) does not give you the right to defame others. Plain and simple.

By making those statements I would say that if you made them in Canada, and were a Canadian Citizen, then yes, you could very well be skirting the line. But that doesn't mean I want to see you locked up in jail.

Hate has no place in an equal and open society. And although it may be called a "Hate Speech Law" doesn't mean you have to "hate" someone to breech it, that's just a blanket naming. It really should be called something else - but either way, the intent of the law is the same - to stop hurtful and/or hate-inducing speech.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

See my post to the other poster above you .

I won't bother retyping my position.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[omeomi]

If you think that a functioning welfare state providing a safety net for the poor constitutes state socialism

Well, by definition, it sort of does, doesn't it? Not that that's a bad thing. It seems to me that a true capitalist society would have no welfare system whatsoever, so when it comes right down to it most "free" countries have some elements of capitalism, and some elements of socialism thrown into the mix.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[qw(name)]

I see your out to make friends today.

It's a given that Canada is becoming a socialist state. Just look at the many programs that are run by the government. I was merely siting an example of the next step they are taking in the wrong direction.

Admittedly, I could have worded it better and, yes, that is authoritarianism. What liberalism has to do with this conversation I don't know.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[LPetrazickis]

You are also assuming that:
- the populace would be 100% against the government
- no three-way rebellions
- there'll be one rifle per head rather than ten rifles per head in one tenth of the cases and zero rifles per head in nine tenths of the cases

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[renehollan]

... and as a Canadian citizen I was royally pissed when I left Canada for a TN1 INS interview in Buffalo, NY, and returned an hour later. I wasn't even asked to identify myself. I could've had half a dozen AR-15s in the trunk (I didn't).

My tax dollars at work... I think not. At least ask to see our passports and run the license on the Ontario-licensed car.

I have always found U.S. Customs and Immigration far more thorough, as well as polite: reentering the U.S. to enter in H1B status 6 months later after "doing the loop" at Blaine, WA involved verification of extensive paperwork by the INS (approval notices, passports, birth and marriage certificates, expired passports with TN1 stamps, etc.) and it was done with surprising rapidity. I get really angry when I hear of Canadians complaining about U.S. border crossing delays -- Hello? It's a foriegn country! If you don't like their rules, stay home!

<ObOnTopic> I recently called an old Canadian employer to enquire why I hadn't received my T4 (a W2 equivalent) -- all the drone asked for as proof of identity was my name. She then spouted off my earnings, address of record (which was wrong), and old address of record, and said she'd send a PDF via email. She sent a plain, unencrypted email, not an encrypted PDF (say encrypted with my employee ID or SIN (Canadian equivalent to U.S. SSN)). How can there be privacy when there is no security of information? This was typical of my experiences in Canada in 2003/2004. </ObOnTopic>

With GWB, and all that implies, I'd still take the U.S. over Canada any day. That isn't an endorsement of the U.S. as perfect (it certainly isn't) as much as a condemnation of Canada as absolutely, bizarely, screwed up: If (well, when, unless a Green Card is forthcoming) I return to Canada, I go to jail -- as a married man the law requires me to provide for my wife in the "manner to which she has become accustomed". Of course, there is no job commensurate with my skills in Canada that even comes close to paying (after taxes) what I can earn in the U.S. No excuse ("You shouldn'tve left!") -- go directly to jail. The Canadian governments (federal and provincial) are so desperate for tax dollars, they (a) effectively make it illegal for the most productive to earn less and thus pay less taxes, eroding the tax base, and (b) place horrible restrictions on eligibility for tax-funded social benefits (like healthcare, which itself is a joke) such as requiring provincial residency to be permanent (at least in Ontario). If one does not apply, one can theoretically lose one's kids (refusing government healtcare means putting one's kids at risk for lack of healthcare, in theory -- grounds for removal from the home).

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Fallen_Knight]

only religion hat i know of thats comming under fire here is pologomy.

Gun laws are ok, you can get handguns/rifles if you get the permit (not easy) but no assult rifles.

Not sure about the rules for carrying guns aroud but i think in the city its pretty strict. But i know a entire family (dad, mom, son daughter) that have their firearms permits, and the mom has her restricted (handguns).

aside from the fact assult rifles are outlawed i don't see any problems with the current laws?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Mattintosh]

And Louis Farakkhan was so friggin' effective...

Wahhabi Muslims ain't Shiite.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[qw(name)]

"Freedom of speech" arose from the priciple that anyone should be allowed to voice a POLITICAL opinion without reprocussions.

Is that why pastors cannot talk about political candidates during elections? Religious organizations shouldn't have their rights suppressed just because of what they believe. It's the government who should stay out of religion and not the other way around. That was the intent of the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Hate legislation has been brought in to curtail the abuse of the freedom of speech principle to prevent the nauseating flood of garbage from those that cannot accept the opinion (or existence) of others.

Not everyone accepts your point of view. Does that make your point of view or opinions garbage? No. They are still your opinions and you have just as much of a right to voice your opinions to your President/Senotors/Congressmen/... as everyone else. What's important here, that most people all too often forget, is that both sides can express their views to their government without repercussions and not just one side or the popular side.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

Freedom of Speech is not intended only to protect POLITICAL opinions. It's meant to protect all speech. That's why it's called "Freedom of Speech" and not "Freedom of Political Speech".

Religious organizations should not stay out of any discussing or debate they don't want to stay out of because they are composed of people. All stake-holders in society should be be allowed to participate in all public discussion & debate.

Freedom of religion means that people are allowed to worship freely in the manner that they chose. It does not mean that the religious in society may not participate in public life nor does it mean that when they participate they should pretend to be non-religious. It simply means that the state cannot impose any religion or form of worship on the population. The separation of Church & State guarantees that no religious organization shall dictate to the government. Only the voters may do that. But the separation of Church & State does not mean that churches has to stay out of public debates. They can participate. They just aren't granted control.

I don't want to curtail your life. But I demand the right to full freedom of speech which may or may not include telling you things that you may not agree with.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[handslikesnakes]

Oh, Angelfire! The only source more credible than that is Geocities.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[TheRaven64]

20 citizens against per 1 soldier seems an awfully low number considering the number who can be killed by a single pilot in an F117 (for example) I would imagine that a single air force base contains enough armament to devastate the entire North American continent. If the government decides to make use of chemical weapons then the number could be even larger. Do you (or any of your armed compatriots, for that matter) possess anything that would be effective against a high-altitude bomber or a stealth fighter? What about against a tank? You could probably shoot down an armed UAV - if you saw it in time...

If you think an armed militia would stand a chance against a modern military force under a competent commander, you are sadly mistaken. Guerilla tactics might work for a while, but eventually the amount of collateral damage a police state deems acceptable will increase to the point that they don't mind killing everyone around you to get to you. Do you really think you could persuade more than a handful of your countrymen to stand against such odds?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[handslikesnakes]

It isn't statements of hatred that get you charged, it's promotion of hatred. A subtle difference, and nothing to do with the way people feel.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

For the record I am a Canadian citizen and I am in Canada. (Specifically in Coquitlam sitting at home posting to slashdot because having a cold sucks). The question is whether or not I have broken the law. Maybe I have, but if I have, then it is an unjust law.

I'm not a church leader, but does that make a difference in this case? If it's legal for me to say something, shouldn't be legal for someone else to say the same thing? More to the point, how many people have to think I'm worth listening to before I'm a "community leader"?

I think you have good motivations, but you cannot protect society from hateful ideas by criminalizing speech. Bad ideas need to be confronted and destroyed by better ideas.

Emotional & Mental hurt are not on the same playing field as physical hurt. And people should never be granted the same protections from "emotional hurt" as they are from physical hurt. This is because "emotional hurt" is entirely in the mind of the "victim". This is not to say that it's doesn't exist. It does, but it's not subject to outside quantification the way physical harm is. Punching people in the face is easily identified as physically hurtful & violent. The impact of words depends on who is listening.

Participation in society requires people to understand the "sticks and stones" sing-song. Names do hurt, but you can't protect people from names without dreadfully harming the free intercourse of ideas essential to a functioning democracy.

You're right that hate has no place in society. But you can't legislate hate away. Hate needs to be met my love & ideas. Pushing it into a hole just allows it to fester and grow.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[dlek]

Officially, I'm annoyed, but your rehash of an old joke made me laugh. Good juan.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[handslikesnakes]

It would probably depend on whether your church said that homosexuality is a sin or that homosexuals are filthy animals unfit to walk the earth.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[fiftyfly]

Very strong civil liberties

You mean like the right for gays to marry the person they love?

Or the right to say what you want/need... in designated "Free Speech Zones"

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

what are you talking about?

Wahhabi's are Sunni, but what does that have to do with anything?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[MoneyT]

[quote]20 citizens against per 1 soldier seems an awfully low number considering the number who can be killed by a single pilot in an F117 (for example) I would imagine that a single air force base contains enough armament to devastate the entire North American continent. If the government decides to make use of chemical weapons then the number could be even larger. Do you (or any of your armed compatriots, for that matter) possess anything that would be effective against a high-altitude bomber or a stealth fighter? What about against a tank? You could probably shoot down an armed UAV - if you saw it in time...[/quote]

yes, the military has a technological advantage, but if history is any indication (heck if the Iraq war is any indication) no matter how great your technology, you still need soldiers on the ground.

[quote]If you think an armed militia would stand a chance against a modern military force under a competent commander, you are sadly mistaken. Guerilla tactics might work for a while, but eventually the amount of collateral damage a police state deems acceptable will increase to the point that they don't mind killing everyone around you to get to you.[/quote]

Having ruling power is useless with no one to rule. Furthermore, guerilla tactics tend to be quite effective against modern militaries, not because of incompetence but because we haven't reached the point where the soldier doesn't ever need to be there at all. Soldiers have to be on the ground and that makes them targets. And when the soldiers on the ground die, they need to be replaced.

For reference the kill ratios in vietnam were 1 soldier to every 14-18 resistance depending on who you get your numbers from.

[quote]Do you really think you could persuade more than a handful of your countrymen to stand against such odds?
[/quote]

This is the rub, and the problem with going arround telling people they should disarm because their arms won't do them any good. Too many people won't stand to such odds (hence the 50% who refuse to take up arms. But then again, these are our homes, people won't take that lying down. Hoever, I think we could improve that if we had a society which didn't actively encourage people to disarm and taught them to believe it was their duty as civilians to be ever vigilant and to fight, even to the death to protect their rights.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

It isn't statements of hatred that get you charged, it's promotion of hatred.

Not true. In fact it's not even statements of hatred that get on the wrong side of the law.

Section 13 of the Human Rights Act makes it illegal to make any statement "that are likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt..." (Emphasis Added)

So if you make a statement that is likely to expose someone to contempt you are guilty of a crime. The act does not require any sort of communication that says something to the effect of "You should hate this person because of X" in order for a crime to have been committed.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[MoneyT]

You need both. You need to know when to use one and when to use the other. Even Ghandi thought that disarming civilians was an evil action.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Jimmy9Toes]

LOL!!!

"Bangers 'n Mash!!!"

Sorry, I have a lot of friends who are British, and they even hate the food.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[renehollan]

What makes you think I'm divorced.

The requirement is to maintain a "wife in the manner to which she has become accustomed". This applies before divorce (as well as after, for ex-wives), and is intended to prevent husbands from abandoning wives -- there being a right to support even before divorce. And, it's the government, not the ex, that determines the standard -- I know of a case where someone was jailed for failing to pay CA$60,000 child support annually on a salary of CA$45,000: the ex found a school in Switzerland with tuition at CA$5,000 a month, which would have better met the special needs of the couple's daughter, currently in the father's custody, and attending the best special needs school in Canada he could afford. (They divorced because of the daughter's special needs). Ex won custody and a variance for an additional CA$5,000 child support a month so the daughter could attend a "more suitable" school.

Of course, the support order could not be met, and the father was jailed until he would meet it. Damn liberal Canadian judges. Not surprisingly, the daughter does not attend the Swiss school, and furthermore can no longer afford to attend her former school. Both children (he had a normal son as well), as well as ex wife are now worse off because there are no support payments. (They get welfare at the taxpayers' expense).

This stems from a seeming innocent requirement that children are entitled to the "best" care.

I have a standard for employers as well -- I generally don't work for people who don't read. Furthermore, I have rejected job offers when the interview was not sufficiently difficult or thorough -- I've worked side by side with morons as well as geniuses, and I prefer the latter.

Yes, I am opinionated, and I speak my mind. It's saved various employers million$ in the past -- at least those that listened. The rest, well, they're history.

Now, excuse my, while I improve my present employers bottom line through automation.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

You are so incredibly wrong on that point that I just cannot express how wrong you are.

I guess it just boils down to dissenting viewpoints, plain and simple.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[renehollan]

Now, excuse my [sic]...

Fortunately, I am not paid on the basis of my spelling and proofreading.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[bVork]

I don't think calling homosexuality a sin is bigoted, you may. So what--whould I be banned by law from making such a comment?

If you actually understood our laws, you would not say this. See, that wonderful Hate Propaganda part of the criminal code actually does not affect this. One of the defences for saying stuff like this is if you're expressing a religious opinion.

Read more about our laws before you shoot your mouth off. Start here.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

how many people have to think I'm worth listening to before I'm a "community leader"?

The minute you stand up on a pulpit, podium, pedestal or otherwise in front of a communications medium and express your views in a hurtful way and at the same time are respected and listened to because of your position in the social structure, that makes you a community leader. As an individual, you are entitled to share your views in private amongst a likeminded or otherwise circle of friends. Take those "hurtful words" into a public medium, and that's where I tend to disagree with you.

but you cannot protect society from hateful ideas by criminalizing speech

Speech already is criminalized in certain forms by acts of Libel and Defamation, there are already laws for that, civil mind you. That is the difference between "hate speech" and the other two forms, the others affects one person, "hate speech" is against an identifiable group of people due to colour, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. All three forms have no place in a democracy or any civil society whatsoever

Hate needs to be met my love & ideas.

Touche. Well, by your words of "love & ideas", you have already shown yourself to be a hippocrite. You previously posted that you think gays are "evil" and "sinners" and that "children need to be protected" from them. Coming from a Christian, that doesn't sound very loving to me, nor are you providing any good ideas to stop the hurtful and defaming speech coming from certain segments of society. Until then, there will be laws to stop that from happening. If they have to go a little over the edge and try and legislate people's acceptance and understanding for other segments of society - so be it.

Anyways, I am not trying to start a flame war here, so on this point were just going to have to agree to disagree.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[rho]

Scurrilous things about liberals, Democrats, et. al.? You imply that it's only right-wingers who do this.

Hideous invective is spewed by both sides. And speaking of Canadians and Brits, I've read the articles in mainstream foreign papers who claim that our government is headed by a poorly-trained chimp, and that all Americans are fat imperialistic bastards.

Congratulations on your one-sided myopia, BTW.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[rho]

Define "functioning". Canada's socialized health care, for example, is suffering in numerous areas.

Also, until Canada pays for its own defense, I don't think it's cricket for our Great White Neighbors to be so snarky about how "caring" their government is. Didn't I read an article about how Canada's disaster team was unable to go help with the tsunami disaster because they couldn't lift the tonnage? Yes I did.

Safety nets used to be provided by families and churches--you know, by people who choose to help those in need. When the government does that, it's not a matter of choice, and coerced charity is as good a shorthand for socialism as I've ever seen.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

I'll say it again: you are against free speech.

And I'll say it again: Your right to Free Speech stops when you hurt another person or group in any form willfully or intentionaly.

Do you think it's OK to say something hurtful and/or ignorant and defaming in a public discourse against the Jewish people? How about black people (people of African descent)? Maybe people of Asian descent? How about women? Maybe you think it's ok to defame white people and call us a bunch of "Ignorant Racist Redneck Honky Bumbaclots" Hmmm? Hate speech is inciteful of violence, be it emotional, or worse yet - physical, like it or not.

Who do you say should decide what is hate and what is not?

Civil society, laws and those that are our elected forms of goverment. That's who.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Less Guns = less bullets = less killed.

Canada has more guns but fewer gun murders.

The U.K. has fewer guns, stricter laws, and since they have been enacted both murders and assaults with guns and with other weapons such as knives, clubs, and bare hands have gone up.

Violence with guns and violence in general is not mitigated by outlawing guns. It is a social problem. If you want violence to go down in either Canada or the U.S., just legalize drugs and treat them as a health concern. A huge amount of violence is the result of the illegal drug trade. Banning guns just makes law abiding citizens easier targets. Ask Florida what happened when they made concealed pistol licenses available.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dagowolf]

Is there protection in Canada's anti-hate speech legislation that protects academics engaged in scholarly writing that might fall into the hate speech designation that you quoted? For instance, a study on rhetoric surrounding homosexual unions might (especially if it includes anything from the conservative portions of the US) violate the letter of the law. So does that legislation rein in academic discussions? Just wondering. :-P

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[oO Peeping Tom Oo]

Oh yeah? What's your name? Smith?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

That's actually a pretty good definition of a community leader. I certainly think that people need to be held accountable for what they say. That's why I don't post as an AC, and I always go by the nom to plume online which links back to my own website.

As for libel and defamation, it's my understanding that both of those are based on knowingly making false statements. i.e. if I said that Adrienne Clarkson had sexually harrassed Peter Mansbridge and it was demonstrably false, I could be charged with libel or defamation. On the other hand if it were true, no such charge could be made. The purpose to this is to encourage the free exchange of ideas. Lies do not aid discourse and are therefore restricted. I'm not saying that free speech is unlimited, (Yell fire in a crowded theater?) just that the hate speech laws are not just restrictions and are damaging to our society in that they allow the false security of driving hatred underground.

And I most certainly did not say that gays were evil. I am very careful not to say that because it's not true. People are not evil. We are all created in the image of God. If you re-read my post you'll see that I said that the "acts" were evil. I stand by that. But this is not the same as saying the people are evil. Homosexual sex is a sin. So is sex with anyone other than your spouse. I haven't committed that sin, but I have committed others. I make no claim of perfection or moral superiority.

Love does not mean accepting everything people do. It means loving them as God loves us. Unconditionally and unconnected to our actions. We should love others because God loves us, not because of the things they do. I'm not even particularly good at doing that, but I'm going to spend my life trying.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

To start IANAL.

I believe that religious freedom can be sheilded, but only so far. As another poster pointed out, freedom of religious expression likely does cover many aspects of speech. However calling people "sinners" is one thing, calling them "evil" and children eaters is another (a weak example, but you get my point).

As for Academic shielding. I doubt it. Can a Professor at University stand up and claim that the holocaust never happened and that the Jewish people are a bunch of liars and heretics? That Professor could, but I figure he'd lose his tenure pretty quick - as for getting in trouble with the law, maybe, don't know. But again, when it comes to the letter of the law, I cannot make claim one way or the other.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Mechanik]

As a certified Canadian Shooting Sports Association club level safety instructor, and a shooting and hunting enthusiast, I am somewhat acquainted with the firearms laws in Canada. I feel a need to respond.

Canada does not have "ridiculous" gun laws.

That is a matter of opinion...

You want handguns, you stay a little longer in the course for the "Prohibited" weapons part, you write a second test, now you can own handguns.

Actually you mean "restricted" firearms. Most handguns are restricted firearms, which means that you must have an Authorization to Transport (ATT) to transport them anywhere from whence they are stored (which is typically restricted to only your dwelling home), and this transportation must be with the firearm unloaded; rendered inoperative by means of a secure locking device; and contained in an opaque, locked container which is not easily broken open or into. You also must provide a reason at the time of purchase as to why you want to obtain the firearm. In practice this means you either must be a member of a gun club who wishes to obtain the firearm for target practice at a target range approved by the Chief Firearms Officer for your province, or you must be a bona fide collector. If you take the gun club route, you will be given an ATT that will let you take your firearms to the range, but to nowhere else. If you take the collector route, you get no ATTs at all other than to take your purchase home. You can apply for temporary ATTs for other purposes (repair at a gun smith, consigment sale at a gun store, etc.). Note however that "self defence" is not considered an acceptable reason to wish to purchase a restricted firearm, and will probably result in all sorts of red flags being raised about you, visits from the police, etc.

Prohibited firearms are another class, and covers everything from full-autos, to short barelled handguns (although why having your handgun barrel a few millimeteres shorter is going to make it suddenly a tool of evil is beyond me). It is illegal to import these types of firearms without a special business license -- basically only if you are a "gun wrangler" for the entertainment industry, or if you are a supplier of firearms for police and military applications. People that owned these types of firearms prior to the various dates on which the different classes were banned are grandfathered to continue to own them, but for the most part are unable to do anything but look at them, as the only types allowed to be transported and fired even at an approved range are restricted to the 12(6) class of short barelled handguns. All other types require a Special Authority to Possess to transport and can only be test fired at a range approved and operated by the Department of Defence. Good luck getting the Army to let you on base to test out your guns in the current political climate.

Since we do not allow concealed weapons here in Canada, in order to use your handgun you have to have a range membership and transport is only allowed between your place of residence and the range. That isn't that bad.

For one, I personally have a problem with not being able to defend myself from attack by criminals.

For second, the level of hassle that this provides varies from province to province. In Ontario, it's not so bad, as we are given ATTs that are good 24/7 to go to any approved range in Ontario with any restricted firearms and prohibited handguns registered to our residence, so long as the route is "reasonably direct". In other provinces though, you get the third degree, and they want to know what range you're going to, with which particular guns, what route you're taking to drive there, etc. There are all kinds of potentials of abuse for that information if the police just happen to decide to do a "random" traffic stop along your route at the time they know you're going to be there.

The lovely part about all of this red tape is that most of it is not legislated at all, a

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[mtrupe]

"And I'll say it again: Your right to Free Speech stops when you hurt another person or group in any form willfully or intentionaly."

Absolutely! It is free speech. Its may be stupid, bigoted, and hateful, but you cannot have free speech if you cannot say things other people disagree with.

How about these examples:
"Christians are wacko fundies."
"Republicans are idiots."
"Democrats are idiots."
"I don't like people with brown hair."
"White people can't dance."

Should these statements be outlawed?
What's the next step? You can't speak out againsts your government because you may hurt their feelings?

You simply cannot put conditions on free speech. You're not making sense. I hope there aren't too many others like you.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

I am sorry, I reread your post, and I apologize.

I appreciate this discourse, it is obvious that we do indeed fall on different sides of the spectrum when it comes to this issue. I myself am not perfect, far from it. Very far from it.

Anyhow, we obviously both want what is best for our society, it's just that we have different viewpoints and opinions on just how we should arrive at that point.

That, is the very nature of a true democracy.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't like the feds knowing about each gun I own, but it's not that big of a deal, I use them for hunting, not for causing some armed rebellion.

There are two big differences between gun ownership in the U.S. and gun ownership in Canada. The first is that the primary legal reason for gun ownership is to empower the people to remove any corrupt or oppressive government. Canadians do not consider this motive important for the most part because they do not fear their government. Interestingly, many do fear the U.S. government. The U.S. government is a huge threat to the world and it is the duty of U.S. citizens to keep it in check. Guns are protected as a means to that end.

The second big difference is that guns are owned for self defense. For whatever reasons, violent crime including burglary, murder, rape, and robbery are all much bigger problems in the U.S. Canadians do not carry guns for self defense, although they may keep them in their homes. Americans often carry them on their persons. I largely attribute the crime difference to the huge amount of criminalization in the U.S. (25% of young, black men go to prison) and to the poverty problems here. The social norms are different in any case.

Many Americans do hunt, and many politicians would like Americans to think that is the only reason we should own guns. These same politicians have armed bodyguards.

Basically what I am saying is that unregistered gun ownership is both a right and huge responsibility in the U.S. It is not so in Canada. Hopefully you can understand why someone from the U.S. would find gun registration to be a significant lack of freedom. It defeats the main purpose for gun ownership in the U.S.

As far as hate crimes are concerned, I think the legislation is misguided. Make laws against wrongs, not talking about wrongs or encouraging wrongs.

Please note, I am by no means bashing Canada. In general Canada is much better about ensuring civil rights than the U.S. and both restrictive gun laws and hate crime legislation are enacted in many places in the U.S. More practically, the social climate there is more tolerant, educated, and less violent. I admire Canada and enjoy visiting (I always seem to live close to the border). Heck, I'm even dating a Canadian right now :)

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

Canada's socialized health care, for example, is suffering in numerous areas.

People with an agenda other than publicly funded universal healthcare usually make that claim. However, people who have been recent users of the healthcare system have few complaints.

Even though it does have a few problems, it is clearly better than the alternatives.

until Canada pays for its own defense

Who is going to invade Canada? Who wants to attack Canada? Nobody. The US looks out for us purely out of self-interest. An attack on Windsor is as good as an attack on Detroit. An attack on Vancouver is as good as an attack on Seattle.

We have no domestic requirement for a military. We have no desires or intentions of invading anyone else. We only need the armed forces to assist others internationally.

When the government does that, it's not a matter of choice

If a political party openly campaigns on certain policies, is elected based on those policies, and as a government implements those policies, it is not coercion. The electorate chose those policies.

Canadian politicians who openly suggest abandoning universal social programs do so at the risk of their careers. A sizable majority of citizens fully support these programs - and would choose to enhance them, rather than abandone them. Coercion? I hardly think so. It's called democracy.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

Your examples are not hateful, that's the point. Hate: To feel hostility or animosity toward.

I think the key word here is "hostility" and/or the incitement of hosility. Either way, I just don't agree with you. I live in Canada (do you?) where we don't have the first amendment to sheild everything one says - which is really the crux of the issue, and I beleive it is not right to incite hateful speech towards any other group or hell, even an individual. Saying someone is an idiot or that you don't like them, or that they can't dance (which is just a stereotype) is not by definition - hateful, plain and simple.

You simply cannot put conditions on free speech. You're not making sense.

Actually you can put conditions on free speech. As another poster whose options I disagree with but respect brought up: Can you yell Fire in a crowded theatre when there is none? The answer is no. You will most deinfately get in hot water for that one. In the interests of free speech do you think that's ok?

I hope there aren't too many others like you

In the interest of a more civil and less hurtful society, I bloody well hope there is.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

You didn't respond to the gun law legislation

Personally, I have no problem with the gun legislation. The vast majority of Canadians in all provinces support the concept. The implementation has left something to be desired, but that is another matter altogether.

If anything, the legislation has not gone far enough. I don't think that anyone needs to own a firearm. Nobody apart from the police or military should have hand-guns. They are only useful for killing people, and I would have them banned outright. Hunters should be limited in the weapons they are permitted to own, in terms of the size of the magazine and the power of the weapon. The activity is "hunting" and not "shooting", and nobody needs an ultra high-powered rifle to take down a deer.

outlawing of certain religions in Canada.

Like what? We even let the *cough* pyramid scheme *cough* scientologists operate here.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[DigiShaman]

They attacked the WTC because they hate freedom and democrocy. al-Qaeda also threatened the Iraqis from voting as it would "wash the streets with blood".

You don't get it do you? The war isn't just about stopping islamic fundamentalism, it's about eliminating the oppression it emboddies.

BTW, Bin Ladin has been given "OK" by the Sheik to use a nuclear to kill millions of Americans. But...I'm sure that sand your head it stuck in is nice and safe huh?

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/11/1 2/20041112_170400_flash2.htm

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[swillden]

Religious organizations should stay out of most political debates

You mean you would *like* them to stay out of most political debates, because you don't like what they have to say and would prefer not to have to address their viewpoint.

Religious organizations are comprised of people, and people should be involved in whatever political debates they think are important.

You want to live your life according to your religious doctrine? Go for it. You want to curtail my life because it doesn't fit your doctrine? I don't think so.

Agreed, but don't forget to turn it around the other way. There are many ways in which humanists and atheists want to curtail the life of religious people because it doesn't fit their doctrine, and that equally wrong.

We all need to live and let live where possible, and to be gracious and understanding where conflict is inevitable.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[poofyhairguy82]

I honestly hope you are serious about moving, and I will help you pack. If you and your son are such complete cowards you are scared of a draft that does not exist, then please please please get the fuck out. Members of my family have been in every war the US has had, including the revolution. I am ashamed for them and myself, (DS1) that we fought to protect your cowardly ass. please please please get out quick. Don't wait another week. Where are you at? I'll happily take vacation to come help you pack. While I realize that once a coward, always a coward, if you think just because you are in canada that will stop the mooslums from attacking you, (Yes I know its mispelled, I did it on purpose to show the coward muhamad ali's method of saying it) you are insane. They attacked the WTC because it was a shining example of freedom, but they hate all christians, and intend to kill us all. no matter how cowardly you are, or where you run and hide.

Ok. Ok.....Let me first say "hello Canadians." Its always fun to get into threads with the friendly people up north.

Now many of you must have read this poster's comment and thought "man, those people in America sure are ignorant." If fact, it must puzzle you that in our public sphere we actually glorify such people. The reason is that many of us Americans who are not as ignorant have decided that we need such people to help us out. How could such a person help us out you say? Simple: by fighting in a war to protect our economic interests. As this person freely admitted: " Members of my family have been in every war the US has had, including the revolution." See.....these people are encouraged to think that "evil Muslim bogey-man is going to jump out in the night and kill you because you like Jesus" because the truth (the fact that the middle east hates us because of huge economic and militaristic disparities) is often too hard for these people to understand and because we need these people as cannon fodder. In the Muslim world, some of the Islamic militants do the same thing. They tell the people that "Christians (Jews, whatever) are evil and they must die" because only these sorts of lies can motivate regular people into sacrificing their most important possession (their life) for the nation's economic conflicts. Of course the biggest difference is that in the United States people are allowed to freely chose if they want to be this way, without fear of bodily harm if you refrain.

Truth be told, America has suffered WAY less damage considering our relative wealth than any other nation-state in history. The cigarette companies kill way more people than "terrorists" can ever hope to. Yet this is not because of luck. No, we Americans stay safe because millions of Americans willingly accept the "the bad guy is going to kill you" logic and therefore volunteer to be shipped in countries all over the world where constant vigilance stops most 9-11s from even happening. In fact, there is a school of thought (I don't subscribe to it, but I don't see much evidence against it) that 9-11 was an attack that was allow to happen because we (as Americans) have done such a good job defending ourselves that fewer people were willing to believe that a "bogeyman" was out to get them and our military was declining. Even though this seems extreme, I will say that I know that 9-11 definitely increased the supply of people who are willing to die to keep everyone else safe.

Now, I understand if you (as a foreigner or as an American) strongly disagree with how our military conducts itself. I will personally admit that we have been less covert about our actions (WMDs, who the f-ck bought that excuse when the other two "axis of evil" countries were sitting on a pile of them) than in the past, but I assure you that I military has the same goal it has always had- defend America and help protect its economic interests. I must say that I personally (and many other Americans would agree) am a little embarrassed that America's first priority is greed, but I accept this as a fact of life t

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[SubtleNuance]

vii) Have a free press.

Reporters without borders index has USofA @ 17th. Canada, 5th.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Fisban78]

Wow, it's refreshing to see two people with very different view points have a civial discussion about it. It's not something you see on slashdot forums very often.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

Oooops you're right about restricted/prohibited. I do not fall into either of those classes so sometimes I get them mixed up - although a friend of mine is in the restricted class, regardless, I only have my PAL and an unrestricted license.

And the number of firearms, again, correct. I realize after I posted it that I though that number was off. Frig, I just had a discussion on that over the weekend. My bad.

That's why you're an instructor, you know the details of the whole thing - although for an average citizen, I think I got the basics down maybe the semantics were wrong, alas.

You're right though, the registry is pretty much completely bogus, although, I do have a small bit of trust in the government that they won't misuse it. Call me naive, but seriously, there would be way more backlash if they tried something more stupid than what has already been done.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

He wrote this letter as a private citizen and did not share these views in a classroom. Yet he was suspended.

Rightly so. If he teaches in the public system, he is there to teach everyone, including the children of homosexuals and kids who may be homosexual.

Would it have been acceptible if he had submitted a letter critical of a particular religious or ethnic group? Certainly not, and it is right that he was held accountable for his actions and poor judgement.

Christians are beginning to get somewhat distrustful that full freedom of religion will be granted to them in the future.

What is there to distrust? You will remain free to practice your religion in the realm of your private life. Please note that religious freedom != a license for intolerance though. The Bible has a lot more to say about tolerance, love and helping the poor than it does about certain aspects of human sexuality. I listen to what some Christians have to say about gays, and then I read the sermon on the mount, and I wonder if we are both reading from the same book...

What ever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?

Two things:

1. This is not a free speech issue.
2. Free speech is not absolute. It is subject to the reasonable limits clause of the charter of rights and freedoms. You cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre and justify it as free speech. You cannot council someone to commit a crime and call it free speech.

We live in a pluralistic multi-cultural society . There is plenty of room for different religions, but everyone needs a health dose of tolerance for people who are different.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[CrimsonAvenger]

You are also assuming that:
- the populace would be 100% against the government

True enough. and the OP assumed the military would be 100% FOR the government. It won't be. If the Civil War is any guide, a 60-40 split (gov/rebel) is not unreasonable.

- no three-way rebellions

Also true. And the Army will split as many ways as the rebellion does. Plus one more faction for the government.

- there'll be one rifle per head rather than ten rifles per head in one tenth of the cases and zero rifles per head in nine tenths of the cases

Rather unlikely - more than 10% of American households keep firearms. Over 40%, last I heard. 40% of Americans is rather more than 100,000,000 last I checked.

I understated the number of firearms available to the "rebels" to account for the fact that not all Americans own firearms.

Note that the total number of civilian-held firearms is closer to 300,000,000 than 100,000,000.

Note further that the firearms owners are likely to be disproportionally represented among any rebels - after all, they're the ones with the means to rebel.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[swillden]

there'll be one rifle per head rather than ten rifles per head in one tenth of the cases and zero rifles per head in nine tenths of the cases

Don't worry, man. If we have to revolt and you want to join up, c'mon over to my place and I'll fix you up and teach you how to shoot straight.

As to whether or not the guns do any good... keep in mind that old cliche that is just as true as it is trite "weapons aren't dangerous, people are dangerous". Weapons are just a force multiplier.

Ultimately, all power derives from force, and the power of the people in a democracy (or a representative republic) is no different. Even without guns, the people do have power, both to apply force (think massive riot) and, in a more civilized world, to threaten force which never actually needs to be applied. The hunting rifles and handguns are a force multiplier, though, and they do increase the power of the people even if they're never used.

What I find most humorous about all of the folks who are convinced gun ownership does not help us protect our freedom from an overbearing government is the fact that they never seem to bother to ask the people who really know -- the soldiers.

Go find a U.S. Army officer or senior NCO who has some experience and significant formal training in warfare (War College or the like) and ask them what they think their chances would be against, say, 20 million determined people with deer rifles.

Try it. I'm serious.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[idsofmarch]

Between you and packeteer I'm suddenly very afraid of the world. You manage to ball almost 1 Billion people, including Cassius Clay (aka Muhammed Ali), into a singular repressive form of their faith driven by power-hungry madmen who are so afraid of change that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions. And, then we get Packeteer who makes al-Qaeda into some kind of revolutionary group who wanted 'freedom'. Both of you are completely out of touch with reality and have managed to explain the lives and motivations of thousands upon thousands of people into simple di-pole. You should be ashamed, al-Qaeda has as much to do with Islam as the KKK has to do with Christianity; their faith is an excuse to justify violence. Steepe, as for your family's military history, congrats, but be honest and think that many of the wars/police actions/anti-insurgencies that the US has been engaged in since 1776, how many of those were fought for the right reasons? Was Vietnam, a battle over communism against Ho Chi Minh, who has spent the last two previous decades pushing out Chinese, Japanese, and French, really about the freedom of its people? Or did we just drag out a civil war that had been happening for generations for another decade? Vietnam was a debacle, and it takes patriots to recognize when their country is right and serve with honor and to also recognize when their country is wrong and work to serve in its best interests, even if that includes civil disobedience. Laslty, it's fought! As in fight. Or did you mean to mispell that too?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

The best way to measure the success of a democracy is how effectively it protects human rights, and typcially those most at risk are the 'weakest' members of the society.

Seconded!

Pity that more people do not look at the world in the same manner. I wish I had some mod points for this comment.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

It's a given that Canada is becoming a socialist state. Just look at the many programs that are run by the government.

Reality check:

1. Canada is not a socialist nation. Canada does have some universal publicly-funded social programs, but that is not "socialist"
2. Even if it were to become one, it would be a result of the democratic will of the population. What is so wrong about that?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[GaepysPike]

Generally I agree, but as long as something posted there has credible sources itself, it being at Angelfire makes what it says no less true.

If you want, I can also teach a parrot to tell you two plus two equals four. It may be coming from a fucking parrot, but it's still true...

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[rho]

People with an agenda other than publicly funded universal healthcare usually make that claim

I.e., people who are not on the dole, or who don't wish to be on the dole. Or, as you imply, people with diabolica agendas, possibly involving liberty and other pernicious ideas.

Contrary to your claim, there are people who have issues with the system who are not "people with agendas", but rather people who have died while waiting for treatment.

n 1999, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Ottawa, described in remarks for the Canadian Institute for Health Information how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, the doctor said, "71 Ontario patients died before surgery, 121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery," and 44 left the province to have the surgery, many having gone to the United States for the operation. (According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 33 Canadian hospitals performed approximately 22,500 bypass surgeries in 1998-99.) Cite

Who is going to invade Canada? Who wants to attack Canada? Nobody. The US looks out for us purely out of self-interest.

Again, with feeling: Canada depends on American muscle. Put Canada near, say, North Korea. Then come and talk to me about who wants to attack Canada.

P.S. It's not just self-interest, it's also good neighborliness. Canada is like our kid brother--we pick on y'all, but when it comes down to it, you're our brother, and we'll look out for you, so you get you use your allowance to buy candy and toys instead of paying off the bullies. That is perhaps the best goddamn analogy for the US/Canadian relationship ever.

If a political party openly campaigns on certain policies, is elected based on those policies, and as a government implements those policies, it is not coercion. The electorate chose those policies.

So you would accept a ban on homosexuality, if the majority elected people who enacted that legislation? Reductio ad absurdum, perhaps, but no less true. If you're going to argue with truisms, I'm allowed to be sloppy.

In the USA, we aren't subject to the whims of the majority. At leas in theory--in practice, the masses often get their way. I don't know about Canada--aren't y'all still subject to the Queen?--but it seems to me that our constitutional republic is less, ahh, fluid. You probably wouldn't recognize Canada pre-Trudeau, but from what I've read it was more American than America in that it was quite the home to rugged individualism.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Boronx]

Hideous invective is spewed by both sides. To be sure, but I'm talking about the way that even mild mannered rightwingers will foam at the mouth these days, and just blame anything and everything on liberals, etc. And the support that is provided for their irrational hatred is incredible, with an all day lineup of Limbaughs and Bill O'Reilly's to steer them back into the fold should they happen across a reasonable lesbian in their day to day business. There are loud mouthed lefties in the public sphere, but the undending stream of hatred for their fellow Americans that the right wing in this country consumes is unique and quite extraordinary in the civilized world.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[idsofmarch]

Sheiks cannot give religious approval, they are political leaders and there are hundreds of them to boot. And, yeah the Wahhabi's, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, etc. are nuts and have people in political and religious positions who agree with them. They are in a very similar situation as the American south between the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement; you could have found a Baptist minister to agree with firebombing black churches if that's what it took. Al-Qaeda attacked the WTC because it was a spectacular target in a mass-population area, while seeking revenge for what they preceive as agression by the United States. These people do hate democracy, which they view as a Greek obscenity which dilutes god's will, and they hate freedom because they don't have any. Our own connection to their oppression, our support of despotic leaders, and our support of groups like al-Qaeda (originally called freedom fighters by Reagan when they were Afghani mujahideen) has created a petri dish of hatred and violence that is finally lashing out at the world. The Middle East didn't come apart on its own, its had 5 centuries of western influence to boot.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Squidbait]

Not an expert on gun issues, but I have to say this about Canadian handgun laws: they keep a LOT of guns out of the hands of criminals.

The downtown eastside of Vancouver, arguably one of the worst neighbourhoods in Canada, is a nasty drug-infested places with one of the highest crime rates in the country (I worked at the courthouse there). One time the cops did a big sweep of street dealers, picked up over one hundred guys. Of those, they found 3 handguns.

I'm sure you can find better statistics about a lack of gun related crime in Canada, but I think this demonstrates the point. If they did a similar sweep in a bad neighbourhood in say, LA, how many guns do you think they'd find?

Sure, I'd like the right to own a handgun, but if that means that I never know who's packing one until they pull it, then you can keep your freedoms in that area. Despite being such a bad neighbourhood, the DTE is really not a dangerous place - most of the drug addicts, who would have no trouble mugging people if they had guns, are simply not capable of doing the same without one. Shoplifting, burglary, car theft, even fist fights are all common, but little serious violence considering.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[PeteQC]

You didn't respond to the gun law legislation and outlawing of certain religions in Canada.

Mod parent up funny please, this guy is doing a joke!

Gun legislation: Ohhhh no! I have to register my gun! What an awful crime, where is my liberty? So the government will know that I have a gun? Man, my life is finished

Do you know that there pretty much the same proportion of persons having a gun in Canada than in the US? The difference is that they are mainly hunting rifle instead of 9mm or Semi-automatic gun.

Outlawing of religions: Hummmm, I'm Canadian since 25 years now and I've never heard of hat. We even let the Rael's group do pretty much whatever they want. We let the Solar Temple Order disciples burn themselves a couple of year ago. Outlawing what? I really do need an exemple here. We respect all religions as long (as some posted earlier) that they don't make hate propaganda (what I think would also be illegal in the USA).

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

Or, as you imply, people with diabolica agendas, possibly involving liberty and other pernicious ideas.

I fail to see what liberty (or lack thereof) has to do with universal healthcare. It exists to ensure that all people regardless of circumstance have access to quality healthcare.

Nobody's freedoms are being reduced or denied. If someone *really* wants to jump the queue and pay out of their own pocket, they are free to travel anywhere they want for treatment. If our system is backlogged and a patient is unable to wait, the public system will pay their expenses elsewhere in order to get that person treatment.

Implying that the public healthcare system infringes on a person's fundamental freedoms seems rather childish.

people who have died while waiting for treatment.

Unfortunate, but true. When allocating scarce resources, there are bound to be a few failures. There is always room for improvement, and the various levels of government are committed to mending the shortcomings. The federal government has announced 40 billion dollars worth of new healthcare spending over the next half-dozen years or so, and reducing the waiting list for critical surgery is a priority.

The neo-cons here have desperately tried to argue that the private sector can offer a better healthcare system at a lower cost than the current publicly funded one, but they are unable to offer any statistical evidence to back up their claims. To the contrary, the Romanow commission on healthcare reform noted that private healthcare systems are typically more expensive and less effective.

Canada depends on American muscle. Put Canada near, say, North Korea. Then come and talk to me about who wants to attack Canada.

The only nation ever to have invaded Canada was the US, and we won that one. The risk the rest of the world poses to us is remarkably small, largely because we post little risk to the rest of the world. We have no colonialist past and no imperialist ambitions. Our only desire for global domination is hockey. Proximity to the US has been a benefit, but let's face it, nobody is actively plotting against those darned Canadians, with the possible exception of Bill O'Reilly...

It's not just self-interest, it's also good neighborliness.

It's nice to have good neighbours, but the US does not spend the same kind of time and money in defending Mexico. Of course, there is no nuclear arsenal belonging to a former superpower on the other side of Mexico...

So you would accept a ban on homosexuality, if the majority elected people who enacted that legislation?

Certainly not. Human rights issues cannot be decided by a show of hands.

If you're going to argue with truisms, I'm allowed to be sloppy.

You are comparing two totally different things. I can't let you get away with being *that* sloppy. What possible connection exists between an overwhelmingly popular government program that works to the advantage of all Canadians and intolerance?

In the USA, we aren't subject to the whims of the majority.

I don't know about that one - you have four more years of GWB, much to the chagrin of about half of the electorate...

aren't y'all still subject to the Queen?

The Queen of England is our head of state, but not the head of our government. Most Canadians are quite happy with that arrangement, and there are no plans to replace her.

it was quite the home to rugged individualism.

I am not sure about that one either. Such a claim is contradictory to our history. Canada is a nation of immigrants and respect for different cultural, ethnic, religious and linguistic groups has always been a major principle. Our constitution and laws have always tried to balance group and individual rights, and sometimes the rights of the group have prevailed.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[kantai]

No, it is you that missed the point.

Let me emphasize the "...cold dead..." part. It implies that I don't care whether or not I win. They won't put me in camps; they won't interrogate me.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

It's true that Mr. Kempling teaches in a public school. Therefore he is there to teach everyone. So therefore if he created a hostile environment for any group of students or if he refused to teach some or taught them poorly he should be disciplined. But that isn't what happened!

Chris Kempling was disciplined for writing a letter to the editor in a newspaper expressing his views. There is no evidence (or my knowledge any credible suggestion that he ever showed bias towards or against any students. The decision came down to a belief on the part of the BCCT that his beliefs were incompatible with being a teacher. Those beliefs are the norm among Christians and therefore Christians do have some justification for being distrustful of government protection of freedom of religion. Personally, I find it very disturbing that a man was disciplined for his beliefs which he expressed outside of his workplace in a forum for public discussion. That is a serious blow against free speech in Canada. (So yes it is a free speech issue).

And for the record, I believe very strongly that if a teacher wrote to the paper expressing disapproval of a religious group, (Say Christianity for instance), the BCCT has absolutely no right to discipline that teacher. Those are views expressed freely in a public forum. He or she has the right to say them.

You will remain free to practice your religion in the realm of your private life.

Well excuse me, but that's not freedom of religion, and I'm not prepared to sit back and have my freedoms taken away by you. Freedom of religion is NOT the right to practice my religion privately and outside of the public sphere. It's the right to practice my religion openly without government interference. Saying you have freedom of religion but only in your private life is like saying that you have free speech, (but only in your private life). Or that I have the right to free association, but only in my home.

And of course Freedom of Speech isn't absolute in Canada. Encouraging someone to commit a crime has never been legal in Canada and that has nothing to do with hate speech laws. But where exactly to Chris Kempler or TWU or I encourage anyone to commit a crime? Your argument is a red herring.

Yes we do need a healthy dose of tolerance to survive as a nation. More specifically, you need a healthy dose of tolerance of viewpoints you don't agree with, so you can get over your desire to punish people like Mr. Kempling who express views you don't approve of.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[ScrewMaster]

I would argue that one of the better ways to measure the success of any governmental/economic system, regardless of its moniker, is how it empowers people to defend their own rights. For a long time, America was a decent example of that, but now, we seem to have the mistaken idea that government should do it for us. Really, it's an abdication of responsibility: we just can't be bothered. Well, we'd better get bothered or things will get ugly, sooner or later. Oh wait, I forgot ... they already are.

I have no idea how to respond to your "tyranny of the majority" remark but I'll take a stab at it. The only time that mob rule of that level occurs is during times of social upheaval or disorder, ironically times when most of us would be very glad to have a gun. Odds are, if that black kid or Jewish businessman was packing some significant heat, the "majority" would take a strictly hands-off approach. Besides, during ordinary times the cops take a very dim view such proceedings, as they properly consider shooting people to be in their exclusive province.

You might remember that Hitler (hey, you mentioned Jews) took several years to disarm the general population of Germany. There was a good reason for that, it turned out ... it helped make his eventual takeover relatively painless. Pretty recent history, really. You might want to consider if those who promote the elimination of firearms in our society have some ulterior motive. I'm not saying they do: but I am saying they aren't being entirely honest with us about the need for gun control. Certainly the numbers we hear spouted all over the media don't add up.

So, private ownership of firearms is hardly "quaint", by any means. I think we'd better clarify what we mean by "oppressive government." In terms of the original Revolution, where the British military was mobilized in an effort to quell the rebellion ... well, the "widespread availability of guns" was instrumental in our being able to break free of British "oppression". That, and the increased availability of guns made possible by the French. Yes, the French ... that strange, complex people who used to be our friends. I know they were because we have a big statue that says so.

In any event, most of us aren't so worried about the United States Federal Government becoming a totalitarian state overnight (although some big steps in that direction were taken since 9/11) or sending in the Army to shoot us. Not yet, anyway, although it is an excess of complacency to believe that it could never happen here (and we Americans are nothing if not complacent.) But there are other forms of oppression that don't involve massive military maneuvers or shoulder-fired rockets.

What we are concerned about, more immediately, is the incremental increase in police power that is making itself felt nationwide. As more and more civil rights are removed from the list, police are able to get away with a lot more than they should. And why not? What can most of us do about it? Answer: nothing. The scales have tipped too far in the direction of law enforcement. Without any effective deterrent to improper behavior, we are entirely dependent upon the good will and maturity of the police and the people that assign whatever limits there are to their actions. Keep this fact firmly in mind: it is not wise to depend upon another man's better nature, because he might not have one. Sure, cops don't like people having guns ... they rightly feel that it makes their jobs more dangerous. To that I say ... tough. If cops want us to respect them, and the law, they (and, more importantly, the politicians that direct them) need to re-learn what the term "public servant" actually means. Until that time, one thing that a well-armed population does receive is a tad more respect from the gendarmes, maybe a bit less oppression.

Add to that

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[FungiFromYuggoth]

The poster made the point that the WTC was not attack because it was a shining example of freedom. I'd like to know on what basis you're disagreeing - hopefully not the simplistic "They hate us for our freedoms". (And yes, I think a lot of the poster's point involved the choice of target - otherwise, why attack the Pentagon and not the National Cathedral?)

Bin Laden has listed his demands, and none of them involve freedom in the US. (Bush has already fulfilled one and is working on a second, by the way.)

BTW, Wahhabi Muslims consider 99% of Muslims to be infidels as well. Sunni muslims pray to Allah and ask for favors in the name of a prophet or a saint (similar to Catholics praying to saints as intermediaries). Wahhabis consider this idolatory, and its practictioners heathens.

To the extent that there's a war, it's not against Islam. It's a war between rationality and blind ideology - and in that war, Bush and Bin Laden are on the same side.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[paganizer]

amazingly large number of replies generated to my original post considering it's "offtopic", eh?

People who are looking to immigrate these days are doing so most likely because of the Patriot Act, which is a symptom of the Bush Administration. Therefore the post was completely on topic.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[SerialEx13]

I'm an American, and I think Canada is better. Too bad it's so cold or I'd move there. Really. On average I see 3 days of snow a year. That's hardly cold. Although this winter we actually did get a big snowfall which shut things down for a day, but that was replaced with 10+C temperatures. Even the ski hills here have had to close because it's too warm and there's no snow.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[wrecked]

Dr. Zong, thank you for your thoughtful posts. However, you are incorrect in assuming that anti-hate laws "trump" the Charter. Anti-hate laws are based on section 15 of the Charter (equality rights), and play against section 2 (freedom of expression).

The Charter itself is a balancing act between different rights. As you correctly noted, one is free to express one's religion as long as it doesn't impinge on someone else's freedom.

If you're really interested, the leading Supreme Court of Canada case is R. v. Keegstra. As a counter-point, see R. v. Zundel, where the accused was acquitted of spreading falsehoods about the Holocaust because the relevant portions of the Criminal Code were found to be unconstitutional.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

Guy... If you'd bother to do a google search of "Chris Kempling", or even read my post carefully, you'd realize that he never preached anything to his class. He wrote a letter to the editor in the local paper. There's a world of difference there.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

You see now if you actually looked at the Human Rights Act, you'd know that there's no exception for religious expression. You have to rely on the Charter right of freedom of religion for your defense. And we already know from past experience that this charter right of religous free expression won't necessarily cover you. The Ontario Human Rights commission fined Scott Brockie $5000 for refusing to print promotional flyers for a Gay & Lesbian organization because printing promotional material of that variety was against his religion.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[lightknight]

Nobody's freedoms are being reduced or denied.

When a man is made to work for another's benefit, with no real choice in the matter, he is a slave; therefore, he is not free.

Unfortunate, but true. When allocating scarce resources, there are bound to be a few failures.

Which is the reason we have something called a 'market'. I'd love to hear you defend beauracracy as a source of efficent resource allocation.

The only nation ever to have invaded Canada was the US, and we won that one.

Fair enough. Care for another round?

To the contrary, the Romanow commission on healthcare reform noted that private healthcare systems are typically more expensive and less effective.

I haven't seen anything that looks like private health care in the US in years. US health care is more of a quasi-socialistic/capitalistic system. Which combines the worst of both systems.

Proximity to the US has been a benefit, but let's face it, nobody is actively plotting against those darned Canadians, with the possible exception of Bill O'Reilly...

Of course they aren't. They need you guys to keep the borders open. Mexico has a tighter border than Canada, and terrorists lounging about are more likely to be reported/kidnapped/killed in Mexico. Not by much, mind you, but the fact remains. However, when they are done with us, you're next.

Certainly not. Human rights issues cannot be decided by a show of hands.

So, how do we determine what is a human right, and when does it become an issue?

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[lphuberdeau]

Well, I guess that makes a whole lot of money. Thanks for the insight. I didn't know those ... details.

I guess everyone knows Hitler was a bad guy. I don't like pointing fingers on dead guys, I'd rather just point out Bush which still contributed third of a trillion for a war.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[stinerman]

Around 50,000,000 americans do not have health insurance. That means they become functionally bankrupt if they need any sort of emergency care. My girlfriend once went to the ER with a high fever and severe vomiting for 2 days straight. Three hours and $1,000 later, they told her that there was nothing they could do and that she should go home.

I will agree the average quality of care is better in the US than Canada, but the quality of care for the poor (the only kind of care that matters) is much, much worse. No matter if you are Paul Martin or the local beggar on the streets, you get the same care.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Dr.Zong]

Well, I always like to say, IANAL.

Thanks for pointing out the true letter of the law, I have read those cases, at least the conclusions anyways, and unfortunately I just don't have the time nor training to properly interpret them.

I did notice dissenting opinions from the justices in the first (which dealt with s.319 of the Act), and in the latter that the court specifically states to the effect that it still upholds the section of the Act (s.181) which prohibits anti-hate speech, and explains it is still democratic and reasonable. Either way, I will take your word for the time being.

In the Zundel case - if my memory serves, I thought that they took him back to court under another section of the Act did they not (a brief search of the web references section 13.1 of the CHRA)? However, those could be two entirely different matters altogether.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[wrecked]

You're right about Zundel; he was prosecuted under a different section of the Criminal Code, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Note, however, that recently he was denied entry into Canada and deported under the Immigration Act (ie. non-criminal).

As for the cases, judging from the quality of your posts, I think that you are more than capable of understanding them! Supreme Court of Canada cases have summaries at the beginning, that are quite accessible.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

When a man is made to work for another's benefit, with no real choice in the matter, he is a slave; therefore, he is not free.

If that is your view, I hope your chains are not bound too tightly... Maybe you should read Hobbes' Leviathan. In it Hobbs argues that no rational person would ever choose the sort of freedom you seem to be in favour of.

When people voluntarily choose to work together for the common good, it can hardly be considered slavery.

Which is the reason we have something called a 'market'. I'd love to hear you defend beauracracy as a source of efficent resource allocation.

It's really quite simple. Public healthcare is demonstrably cheaper than a private system. Every layer of the private system requires profit and those costs are passed on to the consumer. There is always more demand than there is supply, and the demand curve is quite inelastic. So, there is little or no incentive for the providers to compete based on price.

As a percentage of GDP, the US spends more on healthcare than Canada does. But the quality of that healthcare appears to be lower. The infant mortality rate in the US is much higher than it is in Canada for example.

Which combines the worst of both systems.

Yes, I have heard that the HMOs are pretty useless. Even so, there are more people in the US with no healthcare insurance than the entire population of Canada. I'm thinking we have found a better way, and it costs us less as an added bonus.

They need you guys to keep the borders open.

Care to identify any terrorists who entered the US via Canada?

Mexico has a tighter border than Canada

Oh yes. So tight that no illegal immigrants from Mexico ever reach the US...

terrorists lounging about are more likely to be reported/kidnapped/killed in Mexico.

Reference? More likely a troll...

when they are done with us, you're next.

It all depends on what the goals of the terrorists are. If they want to bring chaos and anarchy to the entire world, you are right. But if their vendetta is focused against the US, perhaps not.

If they think of us at all, it would only be a means to that end.

So, how do we determine what is a human right, and when does it become an issue?

That bastion of socialism the United Nations published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights some time ago. Our constitution and laws are interpreted according to our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's pretty straightforward to decide when an issue concerns human rights, since those rights have been clearly documented.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[BayBlade]

Owning a gun is easy in Canada.

You register yourself as a firearms owner (and in the process tell them you're not a criminal, not a child, etc, etc) or a firearms purchaser/owner and they send you a photo id.

Then you buy a gun, fill out a simple form telling them its s/n, make, model and then they give you a sticker that goes on the gun stating it is registered and voila!

Now, that said it may be more difficut to be a legitmate arms "dealer" than a user, not being a dealer I have no idea, but on a scale of one to ten, owning a firearm in Canada is "easy".

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

if he created a hostile environment for any group of students or if he refused to teach some or taught them poorly he should be disciplined. But that isn't what happened!

How can you possibly know? You have no idea what the impact of that letter was.

There are gay and lesbian people in every community, and this guy publishes a letter that is critical of their sexuality. How do you suppose a gay student would feel, knowing that they would have this person as a teacher? There is the potential that he created a hostile environment, and that is why the board took action.

While he was within his rights to write his letter, doing so showed poor judgement.

a man was disciplined for his beliefs which he expressed outside of his workplace in a forum for public discussion

Yes, but the context of his actions suggests to me that this man should not be viewed as a martyr to free speech.

Had he worked in a factory or an office, his intolerant views would not have caused such offense. However, he is a teacher and people in that profession are held to a higher standard of behaviour - and rightly so. There is a power relationship between the teachers and the students. Publicly stating his predjudice against gays and lesbians could have intimidated the students in that community - some of whom may well be homosexuals.

You are framing this as a free speech issue, yet I see it more like someone in a position of trust and authority made a poor decision and was forced to accept the consequences.

Those beliefs are the norm among Christians

Christianity is not a monolithic whole. I believe that the United Church of Canada and the Church of England have a different perspective on the issue.

Freedom of religion is NOT the right to practice my religion privately and outside of the public sphere. It's the right to practice my religion openly without government interference.

Only to the extent that in practicing your religion, you do not break any laws. If your religious principles are contrary to the principles outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is only right and proper that the Charter prevail.

But where exactly to Chris Kempler or TWU or I encourage anyone to commit a crime? Your argument is a red herring.

I implied no such thing. I was merely giving you a couple of examples to demonstrate that the freedom of speech is not absolute.

Neither is the freedom of religion absolute. Preaching intolerance in the name of religion does not give you carte blanche to over-ride someone else's human rights.

More specifically, you need a healthy dose of tolerance of viewpoints you don't agree with, so you can get over your desire to punish people like Mr. Kempling who express views you don't approve of.

You would like me to tolerate your intolerance?

Sorry charlie, I don't believe in keeping quiet and lending tacit approval to bigotry. There is plenty of room for different opinions and honourable dissent, but you have to respect other people and the teacher failed to do that.

We either believe in fundamental human rights or we do not. If we do believe, then sometimes our society will have to make changes to accomodate others.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

It is not legitimate to discipline someone for the potential that their views expressed in a public forum might create some bad feelings in a student. You might as well argue that a teacher should never express a political view in class in case a student is an advocate of an opposing view. Or perhaps a teacher should be forbidden from going to a pro-choice rally because a pro-choice student might feel bad. And if Mr. Kempler was within his rights to right the letter how can you justify punishing him? You have the right to free speech, but if you exercise it in a way we don't like we'll punish you? That's no right at all.

So Mr. Kempling is not a martyr for free speech? Who exactly do you think is entitled to free speech? Those who agree with you? As for the unequal power relationships... Student-Teacher isn't the only one you know. How about Boss-Employee?

And of course Christianity is not monolithic. That's why I didn't say it was a universal to all Christians. It is however the norm. Meaning that it's what the most Christians believe.

Red Herring - A statement or argument unrelated to the discussion. Since neither Mr. Kempler or myself advocated any crime you have introduced a Red Herring.

But the more disappointing part of your post is the end...

You would like me to tolerate your intolerance?

I'm not asking you to keep quiet, I'm demanding that you not attempt to silence people who express ideas you disapprove of or be an apologist for those who silence others. If you read the charter, you'd find that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms. Meaning that all other rights and freedoms are subject to it. (And the other fundamental freedoms). You seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between your right to free expression and your non-existant right to shut other people up. Free speech means that you have to not only allow other people to express views that you find intollerant, you have also have a responsibility to defend their right to express their views.

I do believe in Fundamental Human Rights. The right to punish people for exercising their Fundamental Human Rights is not among them.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

It is not legitimate to discipline someone for the potential that their views expressed in a public forum might create some bad feelings in a student.

You need to look at this from the position of an individual in a minority group that has historically been oppressed. That is what the school board did, and that is why they suspended the teacher.

I thought that this particular example was a little extreme, but you leave me no alternative. Think about what the teacher wrote, and replace the word homosexual with black or woman or jew. Then tell me if you still think if his actions were appropriate for a teacher who worked in the public school system. Would his punishment be equally unjust?

You might as well argue that a teacher should never express a political view in class

They shouldn't!

Teachers are there to teach, not indoctrinate. Biases should be left at home.

And if Mr. Kempler was within his rights to right the letter how can you justify punishing him?

There are lots of stupid things that are well within my rights to do. But if I choose to do something stupid, I must accept the responsibilities and consequences of my actions.

So, even though it was within his rights to publish an intolerant opinion, he should have known that it was incompatible with his position as a teacher in the public school system. He also should have known that the school board could not turn a blind eye to his actions and that there would be sanctions.

So Mr. Kempling is not a martyr for free speech?

No, he is not. Head on over to Amnesty International if you want to read about people who are. I think you will find that his situation is trivial in comparison.

Meaning that it's what the most Christians believe.

So what? Even if most Christians believe as you suggest, it alters nothing. If 100% of the heterosexual population believed that homosexuality was immoral and a sin, we would still be obliged to extend the same rights and privileges to gays and lesbians that are afforded to everyone else. It's a binary proposition, we either believe in human rights for all people, or we don't.

If you read the charter, you'd find that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms. Meaning that all other rights and freedoms are subject to it.

You are forgetting about the reasonable limits clause. Section 15 can be invoked (as per the reasonable Limits clause) to limit fundamental freedoms.

You seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between your right to free expression and your non-existant right to shut other people up.

Reasonable limits. Section 15. Check it out. While it does not apply to this particular discussion, Section 318 and 319 of the criminal code *does* give the state the right to shut people up.

Free speech means that you have to not only allow other people to express views that you find intollerant, you have also have a responsibility to defend their right to express their views.

Have I suggested otherwise?

People are entirely free to make controversial statements. However, they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions - particularly if they are employed by a public institution. If that is unacceptable, than that person is entirely free to seek employment at some private institution that better reflects their opinions.

Life is not consequence free, no matter your religious convictions or the sincerity thereof.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

You keep confusing two points. The first being the correct idea that all people should have equal rights (including gays or any other minority) and the false idea that those rights include the right to silence criticism.

If 100% of the heterosexual population believed that homosexuality was immoral and a sin, we would still be obliged to extend the same rights and privileges to gays and lesbians that are afforded to everyone else.

Of course. But you seem to want to go a step farther and remove the right of those people to say they believe homosexual activity to be immoral and a sin. That is despicable.

Although I will grant that you found a mistake in my argument. You correctly said that teachers were not in the classroom to indoctrinate political views. I stand corrected. What I meant to say was that you might as well say a teacher should not express a political view outside the classroom. Because that's what you're saying essentially. You're saying that a person's free speech in a public forum should be subject to government sanction.

And yes, I'd say that suggests that you don't believe you should be out defending his right to speak, since you believe it should be lawful to sanction him when he does.

And I'm perfectly aware of section 15. "You hurt my feelings is not a reasonable limit".

Call me when you're interested in liberty and not just "hooray for my side".

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[lachlan76]

but that was replaced with 10+C temperatures.

Holy shit, over here in Adelaide, Australia it's above that and I'm practically freezing to death on the way to school ;)

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[deanj]

I suppose our foreign policies are why the Taliban did what the did in Afghanistan?

Grow up.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[deanj]

So... your suggestion would be that since we supposedly did all this stuff, we shouldn't do anything about it now?

Good plan!

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Monx]

So... your suggestion would be that since we supposedly did all this stuff, we shouldn't do anything about it now?

First off, there's nothing suppositional about it. The things I mentioned are all a matter of public record.

I thing we really aught to fix the mess we made ... but openly. Instead of going around blowing things up, our president should make a public international apology for the harm we have caused, and ask for forgiveness. Then we should embark on several multinational efforts to fix these situations one by one.

Of course this would mean admitting that what we did was wrong. That's unlikely because the people responsible for the problems are still people of great influence. Take a look at Bush's advisors and the people involved with Iran/Contra. The assholes who fucked over Latin America and the Middle East in the name of defeating Communism are still there. 9/11 is a direct result of their (frequently illegal, always immoral) actions.

If only the pro-lifers would value post-birth life as much as they do fetuses, we could get all of those jerks where they belong - in prison.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

the correct idea that all people should have equal rights (including gays or any other minority)

If you accept this, then that should be the end of the discussion. If we do not discriminate against people from groups who are different from us, there would be no need for such moralizing on why we are better than they are. Being gay is not a choice, it is no longer a crime, and it is none of anyone else's business.

Some might say that it is the sin that is condemned, and not the sinner. I don't think that gets anyone off the hook. Change things around again, and we do not hate left-handed people, merely the immorality of left-handedness. One may not have anything against blue-eyed people, but we condemn the sin of having blue eyes. Sounds silly, doesn't it?

But you seem to want to go a step farther and remove the right of those people to say they believe homosexual activity to be immoral and a sin. That is despicable.

I read a book that had this to say on the matter:

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I could not help but notice that you neatly ignored the question I asked in my previous post. I am beginning to think it is central to the debate, so I will ask it again: do you think it have been equally OK if the teacher had publicly condemned blacks, women or jews instead of homosexuals? Quite frankly, I don't see any difference. If you do, please enlighten me.

What I meant to say was that you might as well say a teacher should not express a political view outside the classroom.

Another apples-to-oranges comparison. The teacher did not make a political statement - he made a moral judgement. That is completely different from encouraging people to support the BQ/Green/Liberal/NDP/Reform party.

Okay, but some people believe that it is vital to make one's religious principles an integral part of every aspect of life. Fair enough, but such people ought not work in the public sector where it is their job to assist anyone, and not just the groups in society that are approved of.

Despite your attempts to portray me as some authoritarian censor, I would like to remind you that the reason I believe that the teacher was appropriately held accountable for his actions and given an appropriate punishment was that he worked in the public school system where he will almost certainly educate at least one gay person during his career.

since you believe it should be lawful to sanction him when he does.

It is no crime to have a holier-than-thou attitude, but making public judgements against a minority group is incompatible with teaching in the public school system.

Call me when you're interested in liberty and not just "hooray for my side".

Call me when you stop promoting intolerance in the name of religion.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

If we do not discriminate against people from groups who are different from us, there would be no need for such moralizing on why we are better than they are. Being gay is not a choice, it is no longer a crime, and it is none of anyone else's business.

That's not actually the point I'm discussing. I'm not suggesting (and I don't believe Mr. Kempler was either) that homosexuals themselves were evil, bad, criminals or anything else. But I do believe that homosexual behaviour is harmful in and of itself. (To the person themselves as well as to the rest of society). This is what is meant by "loving the sinner and hating the sin" as you phrased it. Some use "love" to mean acceptance without criticism or accountability. This is not love. Would a parent be showing love to their child if they'd didn't correct their self-destructive or wrong behaviour? What sort of friend is it that "loves" without holding their friend accountable for wrong actions? Love does not mean that I tell someone how wonderful they are just the way they are. You may not see this as possible, but I know that it is. I do it every day. Sometimes it's harder than other times. With homosexuals I find it quite easy. With Islamist terrorist I find it a lot harder.

Quoting the beatitudes is fine, but I it's a little dishonest to suggest that that represents all of Christ's teaching. The story of Jesus' encounter with the woman caught in adultery gives us a much better understanding of how would have addressed our situation with homosexuals. Both adultery & homosexual activity are considered to be similar sexual sins and both were punishable by death in Jesus' culture. He shows compassion and forgives her sin but at the same time he also tells her to "sin no more". At no point does Jesus say that she's alright just the way she is. He approaches her as he approaches all of us, (as we are) and then tells us to change our ways. I believe in doing the same when discussing homosexual lifestyles or adulterous ones. This is what I demand the right to say and what you're talking about punishing me for.

Comparing political speech to religious speech is not an apples to oranges scenarios. Both are part of the fundamental freedoms protected by the charter. Your statement that "such people ought not work in the public sector" is disturbing. You're talking about excluding anyone with religiously based values from participating in public life. This is very very wrong. (Not to mention a gross violation of charter rights if it was implemented). You might also consider that Abraham Lincoln & William Wilberforce would have been excluded from the public sector by your logic. (Wilberforce was the driving force behind the abolition of the international slave trade in the 18th Century and he was explicity motivated by his Evangelical Christian beliefs and he used Christian morality to argue his case in parliament).

You are right that I ignored your "replace 'homosexual' with 'black'" question. I ignored it because it was confusing the point by blurring the distinction between criticism of persons and criticism of lifestyle. Both Kempler and I are critical of the actions of homosexuals, not the people themselves. An appropriate comparison would be a white person saying the same things (in a public forum) that Bill Cosby did when he caused that controversy a while back by criticising the actions of the black community in the US.

But what if someone said something about the people rather than about lifestyles? (I will say again that this is NOT was Kempler said, nor is what I'm Saying with regards to homosexuals). Perhaps a teacher wrote a public letter suggesting that "

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

I do believe that homosexual behaviour is harmful in and of itself. (To the person themselves as well as to the rest of society).

You could believe that the earth was flat, but that would not make it so.

I have a hard time understanding how homosexuality could be harmful to a homosexual person. Uninformed heterosexuals certainly pose a risk to homosexuals, but that reflects more on portions of the heterosexual community rather than the gay community.

Nor do I understand how I, as a member of the rest of society am impacted in any way because there are gay people out there. They will not force me to become gay, nor are they trying to recruit my kids.

I believe that whatever legal activies consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business. I fail to see how it is any of yours.

This is what is meant by "loving the sinner and hating the sin" as you phrased it.

It is one thing to condemn behaviour that was deliberately chosen. It is quite another to condemn characteristics that were decided at the moment of conception.

Homosexuality is not, as some of the more unenlightened believe, a conscious choice. One does not choose to be gay. Judging by the stories I have heard from gay friends, no rational person would ever choose to be gay.

It makes no more sense to condemn homosexuality but not homosexuals than it does to condemn left-handedness, but not left-handed people. Neither the homosexuals nor the left-handed people had any choice in the matter.

I believe in doing the same when discussing homosexual lifestyles or adulterous ones

Homosexual lifestyles? Do you also speak of heterosexual lifestyles? I thought not...

Personally, I find the way that you constantly juxtapose homosexuality and adultery together to be more than a little intellectually dishonest. They are completely different things, and only one of them is a choice. Using the same logic, I could draw any number of similarities to what Jesus might have said about something completely unrelated, but I don't think it would do either of us any good.

You're talking about excluding anyone with religiously based values from participating in public life.

Nobody is entitled to a job in public service you know. If you work in the public sector, you have to serve the entire public and not just the portions of the public that you approve of. If strongly religious people are not able to do that, then yes, there is no place for them in the public sector.

(Not to mention a gross violation of charter rights if it was implemented)

I think that you will find that employees in the public sector are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of several characteristics including sexual orientation already.

You might also consider that Abraham Lincoln & William Wilberforce would have been excluded from the public sector by your logic.

Oh the irony! In the name of justifying intolerance, you invoke people who opposed intolerance.

I ignored it because it was confusing the point by blurring the distinction between criticism of persons and criticism of lifestyle.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is an inherant characteristic. To criticize homosexual behaviour is to criticize homosexual people.

Therefore my example was entirely appropriate. A black person cannot choose to not be black, Michael Jackson notwithstanding. By extension, a gay person cannot choose to be straight.

While I might disagree with what the teacher said, I will defend his right to say it.

Thank you. I applaud your consistency.

I do find it highly doubtful that an avowed racist would be able to keep himself from dragging racism into the classroom.

So perhaps you can understand why I question whether Kempler is fit to teach! As I mentioned before, you cannot know with any degree of how his actions affected the students in his school.

There is a reason why the suicide rate for young homosexuals is several* times that of

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

Where to begin...

You still seem to be confusing the right to free speech with "being correct" or "being tolerant". Incidentally there are two freedoms at issue here. Free Speech & religious freedom. While they are linked they are not the same thing. But to pick apart your points.

You could believe that the earth was flat, but that would not make it so.
True. And also irrelevant. True or False is irrelevant when granting free speech. Your opinion as to the truth of my statements is not relevant. You are not required to believe what I believe or even understand what I believe. You are simply required grant free speech to every point of view, not simply your own.

It is one thing to condemn behaviour that was deliberately chosen. It is quite another to condemn characteristics that were decided at the moment of conception.
Also irrelevant to the question of free speech. You don't seem to differentiate between characteristics, tendencies or actions and the people themselves. I believe that people are more than these things. People are born with many characteristics/tendencies/desires/orientations/wh atever. Some are good. Some aren't. I critique a person's actions or decisions to act on those desires (inborne or otherwise) that are bad. If using your left hand to write was immoral then left handed people would be at a disadvantage. Just as some people are born with natural advantages (great composers) others are born with handicaps. But I hesitate to even discuss this in this thread because it muddies the water. The content of a man's opinions are irrelevant when considering the right to free speech. That's the whole point.

Homosexual lifestyles? Do you also speak of heterosexual lifestyles? I thought not...
Well then you thought wrong. Homesexual lifestyles would be ones that involve sex between people of the same gender. I used the plural because there because not all homosexuals live identical lifestyles. Similarly there are multiple heterosexual lifestyles. Monogamous ones, philandering ones, etc. I fail to understand why you seem be offended by the phrase "homosexual lifestyle". The term seems fairly self-explanatory.

Personally, I find the way that you constantly juxtapose homosexuality and adultery together to be more than a little intellectually dishonest.
Well I can understand why you don't like the comparison because it's not exactly a complimentary one. But it's not intellectually dishonest. They're obviously different in some ways, but similar in others. Both are sexual sins condemned in the Bible. Both are consensual acts. Both were subject to death by stoning in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. I also often compare homosexual sex to pre-marital sex. Both are considered acceptable by our culture and both are considered sins by Christians. It's also a useful comparison because it's easier for heterosexuals to relate to the temptations of premarital sex than it is for them to understand the difficulty Christian homosexuals have in rejecting their sexual desires. But I used adultery in this case to starting a side issue over the acceptability of pre-marital sex. The issue isn't the kind of sex. It's that any sex outside a monogamous marriage is wrong.

Nobody is entitled to a job in public service you know.
Of course not. Public service jobs are given out on the basis of ability. But they're not (supposed) to be handed out on the basis of a litmus test for acceptable politics and religious beliefs. (Or at least they're not if you believe in the basic rights of the charter). Of course we're not allowed to discriminate in violation of the charter. But having an opinion & expressing that opinion is not violating the charter as that is constitutionally protected speech. Discrimination would be making homosexuals go to the back of the line. Not expressing your views in a public forum outside of work.

Oh the irony! In

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[why-is-it]

You are simply required grant free speech to every point of view, not simply your own.

Every point of view? No I don't.

You still seem to be confusing the right to free speech with "being correct" or "being tolerant".

No, I don't. I recognize the limits of free speech, in the context of a free and democratic society. I also agree that people have the right to have wrong or outright false opinions, and they should be free to express them subject to reasonable limits. I feel that it is appropriate to draw the line against religious-based attacks on homosexuality. Why? Because it appears to be nothing more than thinly disguised hatred.

The underlying principle that attacking an innate characteristic of a group (i.e. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation) is not the same as attacking the group itself, nor any particular members of that group does not hold itself up to scrutiny. The argument is easy to dispell via reductio ad absurdum.

There is nothing special about homosexuality that makes it worthy of being singled out, other than that doing so is still considered to be acceptible in some corners of society.

If you were to make a similar argument against a different minority group, the underlying bigotry would be immediately obvious.

Both are sexual sins condemned in the Bible.

They are hardly equivalent. It seems to me that you are trying to equate first degree murder with jaywalking. Sure, both are listed in the criminal code, but one is far more significant than the other.

Both were subject to death by stoning in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

Irrelevant. Many things that would result in summary execution a few thousand years ago today are not considered crimes today. Neither of your examples (homosexuality or adultry) are criminal (or civil) offenses.

I also often compare homosexual sex to pre-marital sex. Both are considered acceptable by our culture and both are considered sins by Christians.

Does the Bible specifically state that pre-marital sex is a sin? For that matter, does it specifically state that homosexuality is a sin? Many religions codified existing societal conventions and taboos into the religious framework.

It's also a useful comparison because it's easier for heterosexuals to relate to the temptations of premarital sex than it is for them to understand the difficulty Christian homosexuals have in rejecting their sexual desires.

Telling young people to wait until they are married until they have sex is not remotely similar to telling gay people that they can never have sex.

I critique a person's actions or decisions to act on those desires (inborne or otherwise) that are bad.

Fine, but who are you to state that homosexuality is bad? Before you start waving your Bible at me and saying "it's all in here", please take a look at that Bible. There are lots of words in there, approximately 774,000 apparently. How many words are spent talking about homosexuality in any form? Not that many. Condemning homosexuality does not appear to have been a primary concern of the author(s).

It all boils down to interpretation of course. I have not forgotten that you suggested that the Sermon on the Mount was not typical of the teachings of Christ! It is one of the very cornerstones of Christianity, and the act that got him into so much trouble with local religious authorities.

Beyond that, you are trivializing a really important aspect of human sexuality. You have reduced sexual orientation to the level of a perversion or fetish.

I don't know about you, but I have no interest and would not be capable of having sex with a member of my own gender. Gay people feel the same way about having sex with someone of the opposite gender.

It's not like they can be converted to heterosexuality, and it i

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[issachar]

At this point I would be begining to suspect I'm being trolled but for the fact that there aren't any trolls who'd be this good on slashdot.

I'm not sure you've grasped that there are two different lines of discussion in this thread. The first is free speech and the second is Christian beliefs about homosexual lifestyles. I'm engaging in the second in order to defend myself. It has no bearing on my belief in free speech. If some guy was writing letters to the editor saying that Left Handed writing was harmful to society and should be condemned I would defend his right to say so without sanction. That is completely separate from whether or not I agree with him. I do not know if I agree with everything Mr. Kempler believes about gays & lesbians but I defend his right to express his opinions (which do not call for violence) in a public forum. My agreement with him and my belief in his right to speak are completely separate. Could you please stop blurring the two together? It's a little disingenuous of you

This is especially relevant when I consider your statement that opposition to homosexuality is merely thinly disguised hatred. I do not support hatred. As a Christian I'm called to love my enemies. So I am not defending hatred. BUT ! Hatred should not be against the law. If we say "that idea is motivated by hate, if you share it we'll punish you", is a very dangerous road to start down as a society. We are an open society predicated on the free exchange of ideas. Don't change that.

Your appeal to authority as a means of argument, (by referencing our anti-free speech hate crime laws), does not constitute a valid argument. I'm well aware that free speech is unjustly legally restricted in Canada. It is an unjust law!

The rest of your post is all about arguing that I'm wrong in my beliefs and that homosexuality is okay. Interesting, but not relevant to Free Speech issue. And I don't distance myself on the sermon on the mount. I say that it's part of Jesus' teaching, and that he said a few other things as well. The biggest problem with your understanding of Christ's message is your apparent belief that tolerance & love are the same thing. As for your bubble -gum interpretation of Christianity. I suggest you actually read the bible before you comment. Premarital sex is specifically forbidden in the New Testament, as is homosexual sex. And Paul doesn't say that people get into heaven on the basis of their behaviour in life. (Not that getting into heaven is even the point of being a Christian, but that's really off topic)

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[Fjandr]

I'm not sure about personal firearm ownership, but I've been looking at Costa Rica. Standing army has been Constitutionally abolished.

Like other Latin American countries, it certainly has socialist influences, but it's by far the most stable, and has a growing libertarian influence.

There's also a decent English-speaking population in the San José area if you don't want to become fluent in Spanish. Gaining permanent resident status and/or citizenship can be a bit tricky though.

Re:s/Weary/Wary/

[paganizer]

That sounds awfully cool.
I had been thinking about belieze; I actually know some landowners down there, it's essentially still commonwealth.
However, I've pretty much ruled out anything that close to the equator; If I'm going to uproot my kids, I need to think more long term and global warming + equator seem to be a big no-no.
Currently, I'm looking pretty hard at southern Alaska; 5 minute drive or boat trip to canada, decent personal property laws, and it seldom gets far below freezing during the winter; the only drawback being it seldom gets above 60 F in the summer.
I just wish Vermont and NH weren't so close to the peoples republic of New York; can't beat the (non-existant) gun laws there.

Weary or wary?

[illtron]

So are they weary or wary? A little copy editing goes a long way, you know.

Re:Weary or wary?

[MarkRose]

They're just too weary to be wary about nary a nitpick.

Re:Weary or wary?

[Lemm]

So are they weary or wary?

I'm gonna hedge my bets and say an emphatic "yes".

Re:Weary or wary?

[Quobobo]

Speaking as a Canadian, I'm going to say both.

Re:Weary or wary?

[pbailey]

Definitely both!

Land crossing question

[DrXym]

Do Canadians get fingerprinted and photographed at the border like all us other foreign criminals?

I wonder how many terrorists this amazingly intrusive and expensive system has actually caught.

Re:Land crossing question

[alexwcovington]

Not yet, but foreign nationals and dual citizens living in Canada have to get tagged at the crossing. The way Dubya acts, I'm surprised they haven't broken out the chickenwire yet like they did on the Mexican border.

Re:Land crossing question

[MarkRose]

What are you talking aboot? We don't talk like that, eh! So take off, ya hosehead!

Re:Land crossing question

[DarkBlack]

No one will ever know. All that has to be reported is the number of times they have requested and the number of times it was granted.

At least before they had to have some sort of probable cause, now all they need is one word - terrorism.

It's interesting because I got a big long winded letter from one of my senators explaining why he voted to erode my rights, and that he didn't think that the act eroded constitutional rights. I guess he missed that part about probable cause in amendment IV of the Bill of Rights. Go figure.

For your information, this was Senator John Warner from Virginia.

Re:Land crossing question

[bragolach]

This is why the thinking part of national defense is left up to those qualified for it.

Re:Land crossing question

[brettlbecker]

Don't think for a minute that the PATRIOT act is about actually catching criminals. Of course, in order to catch a criminal, an actual law has to be broken first, and this act sorta just steps to the side of that little point...

But that's not the issue. The PATRIOT act is simply a control-through-fear technique. Keep the masses in fear of 1) an outside power - the terrorists 2) the structure designed to remove 1) - the law ... mix together and you have a cycle of fear-relief-fear-relief ad infinitum. Oh, and it helps to have such a compliant media, and it REALLY helps to have such a heavily sedated public. And as a bonus, the government can basically collect any information it wants about any member of the public. Just for future... consideration. It really is Orwell-worthy... if only he could see it actually come to fruition.

Oh, and about the numbers of criminals that have been caught under this law? I dunno, but the number of convictions as far as terrorism goes is exactly ZERO. Nice job there, Ashcroft!

B

Re:Land crossing question

[bug]

Let's get some perspective on this. Other countries are not exactly the bastion of privacy that they are made out to be on Slashdot. It is common in Europe that you need to present identification when checking into a hotel. For foreigners, they usually make a copy of your passport. This information is then kept for later use or forwarded to the police so that they can then (you guessed it) track you.

Re:Land crossing question

[sgant]

Exactly. It's a world of fear....not just a nation.

We were better off when we had the Soviets and Communism to fear. Back then, the media was pretty much under control and not the fear-spewing idiots they are now. But after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was nothing really to fear for a short while....the politicians didn't have anyone to rally against, the media didn't have fear-laden headlines to sell commercials and papers.

It's a fiasco now...with terrorists behind every tree, global warming melting the entire Earth, liberal media vs. conservative media....dogs & cats living together: MASS HYSTERIA!

Re:Land crossing question

[Archibald Buttle]

Back in September last year my wife and I crossed the land border from Canada into Buffalo NY and didn't get fingerprinted. I'm British and my wife is South Korean.

Now the border officials did have webcams and fingerprint scanners attached to their computers, but they didn't use them.

Since the US/Canada borders tend to be quite busy I'd be suprised if people would tolerate being stopped and fingerprinted every journey. That would cause severe damage to trade relations, which could have a really bad impact on the US economy.

Re:Land crossing question

[gowen]

This information is then kept for later use or forwarded to the police so that they can then (you guessed it) track you.

Wow. Paranoid much?

Do you really think the French Police (for example) have nothing better to do than track the thousands of foreign tourists who are visiting Paris at any one time? Yes, you need photo ID to check into a hotel, but the last time I used a Travelodge, that was true in the US, too. I've stayed in many European hotels, and only once had by ID duplicated (at a real fleapit dive in Paris).

Re:Land crossing question

[smchris]

I read just the other day that there is a pilot program to "tag and release" Canadians at a couple ports of entry using RFID.

http://news.com/States+to+test+ID+chips+on+forei gn +visitors/2100-1039_3-5552120.html

Re:Land crossing question

[zakezuke]

Let's get some perspective on this. Other countries are not exactly the bastion of privacy that they are made out to be on Slashdot. It is common in Europe that you need to present identification when checking into a hotel. For foreigners, they usually make a copy of your passport. This information is then kept for later use or forwarded to the police so that they can then (you guessed it) track you.

I can speak for the US. There seems to be an unwritten rule about not asking for ID if you pay cash. Not that I care one way or another I found that paying cash makes for less paperwork to fill out, very nice if you've been on the road too long. I don't know if the same rule applies to foreigners but who would know you are a foreigner unless you presented ID.

Re:Land crossing question

[HeghmoH]

I've stayed in youth hostels in Rome and London, and various hotels in France, and never had to present any kind of ID, much less my passport. Where in Europe is this common? Maybe I'm not visiting the "right" hotels.

Re:Land crossing question

[will_die]

Under the Patriot Act thier as of 2003 thier were 250 criminal charges and 130 convictions or guilty pleas.
During that same thier were 34 allegations of violations but no convitions.
The allegations are similar to the following An inmate's allegation that during a physical examination a Bureau of Prisons physician told the inmate, "If I was in charge, I would execute every one of you ... because of the crimes you all did." According to the report, the physician treated other inmates "in a cruel and unprofessional manner." After an internal Bureau of Prisons investigation substantiated the allegation, the physician received a verbal reprimand.

Claims that an Immigration and Naturalization Service detention enforcement officer "held a loaded gun to an alien detainee's head and threatened the detainee while transferring him to another detention facility."

Re:Land crossing question

[Skater]

Ashcroft? Remember, both Democrats and Republicans voted for this act.

Re:Land crossing question

[UnHolier than ever]

Actually, crossing the american border as a canadian is quite funny. I was in Logan airport recently on a flight from Paris. The line-up was awful, everyone single person got interrogated and fingerprinted, included families with children, until it was my turn. I had filled all the papers they gave me in the plane (which takes a long time!) but when the border agent saw my passport, he basically said "Oh, you're canadian! You don't need this! Welcome to America! Next!!!". That felt nice...until I realised all that other people had to go through. Honestly, it's too much.

Re:Land crossing question

[Hypr]

In certain circumstances, as I discovered in October 2004, they do. Allow me to tell a little tale. I'm Canadian, though I have worked in the United States for several years through NAFTA (TN-1 status). To be able to work in the US, the candidate must be Canadian, have a degree, and have secured a job that is listed in the Treaty itself. (The rules are different for Mexicans.) I have a B.Sc in Biology, and have worked as a Computer Validation Specialist--a job specific to pharma and biotech companies and such. The science background helps in my job as I work with computerized lab instruments, and lab people that know little about computers. So, I was living back in my homeland, Nova Scotia, Canada for a few months after a Validation assignment finished in Michigan. I got a new job in Minnesota, and loaded up my vehicle and set out to drive (long drive). When I arrived at the New Brunswick-Maine border, I was told by the Immigration officer (Homeland Security) that I could come in to the country as a Computer Analyst (the NAFTA job description I've had for several years) because I didn't have a comp. sci. degree. I was refused entry! So here I was, supposed to start work two days from then, and I couldn't get in when I knew I was within the law to do so. Now I know that it is a great PRIVILEGE for me to be allowed to work in your great nation, but I had just driving six hours. I wasn't thrilled. Of course I didn't want to cause trouble for fear I'd end up at Gitmo, so I said thank you and I'll be on my way back home. Oh, no my friend, you have to be fingerprinted and photographed. "But I'm Canadian, I said, with indcredulity. "It's policy whenever someone is denied entry that they be fingerprinted and photographed." I always jokingly suspected that the feds were listening to my cell phone conversations because, well, as a Canadian I'm a raging liberal and like things like civil liberty, care of the environment, global community and all that (you know who I'm talking about). Now I'm in the system. In fact, they're reading this post right now! Say hello to the nice FBI agents, Slashdotters!

Re:Land crossing question

[TGK]

Nice with the Ghostbusters ref, though I doubt many people got it.

You're 100% right, for a number of reasons. First off, our security was threatened a great deal more by the Soviet Union than by international terrorism.

There are reports (which I've cited on /. before, but I'm too lazy to find right now, go find them yourself if you care) that the Soviets had gone so far as to install a small low yeild warhead in the basement of their embasy in DC so as to pull off a decpitation strike if things ever got really bad. I belive this was during the Nixon Administration.

The World Trade Center sucked, and so does the so called war on terror, but the casualties of the cold war are staggering by comparison.

Vietnam: 58,000 Dead
Korea: 33,000 Dead
WOMD Pointed At Us: 55,000

Compare to the War on Terror where casualties have been measued in the thousands and there remain no WMD pointed at us.

The Bush appologists will tell you this is because of the superior quality of the US military in this war, and the continued dominance of the US as a the last remaining superpower.

They might be right on that second point. Just as the school bully generaly fairs better picking on a 1st grader than a HS Senior, so also will the US fair better picking on Iraq or Afghanistan than China or Russia.

We're blowing this out of proportion. Terrorism is a threat, yes, but a threat to be compared to other fiarly innocuous problems throughout American History. Terrorism is like the 21st century's version of the 19th Century's Mexican War.

Weapons of Mass destruction are still terrifying, but as long as a superweapon can be smuggled into our cities in the bloodstream of a legaly documented traveler... what can we possibly do? It's time calm down, get our wits about us, and face the world.

Unfortunately, we've just elected a witless redneck to another four years of marioneting by Dick Cheney, Dark Lord of the Sith.

Is there any room up in Canukistan?

Re:Land crossing question

[Pofy]

I routinely stay at hotels in Sweden, Finland, Germany and France (and sometimes in other countries) and never present any sort of identification (nor asked for). Not sure were you have stayed though.

Re:Land crossing question

[strider44]

Compare to the War on Terror where casualties have been measued in the thousands

That is misleading and/or incorrect. The correct statement is: Compare to the War on Terror where American casualties have been measued in the thousands

Re:Land crossing question

[mtrupe]

Do you think for one minute gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Nope. They only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while the criminals keep their guns. I wouldn't want to be a Canadian: 1. They have no freedom of speech. They cannot say "hateful" things. I'm not sure who defines what is hateful and what is not. Scary. 2. They have no right to keep and bear arms, or defend themselves against criminals. Yeah, great country, eh? http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com

Re:Land crossing question

[DrXym]

It seems to happen in France, but I don't recall it happening in any other country I've stayed in. And I've been to lots of European countries - France, Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Netherlands, Brussels, Italy, Austria.

In France (or Paris to be precise) they photocopied my passport, but even there it's inconsistent since I've stayed places where they didn't bother, or simply jotted down the passport number.

Re:Land crossing question

[damian cosmas]

"Don't think for a minute that the PATRIOT act is about actually catching criminals."

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's actually about taking powers the government already has (and which require court orders) under RICO and FISA, and allowing them to be used as investigative tools (again with court orders) against terrorists, instead of just gangsters and spies. In other words, catching criminals.

"Oh, and about the numbers of criminals that have been caught under this law?"

More importantly, can you give me the number of people whose civil liberties have *actually* been violated (N.B. not those who "felt" they were violated) under specific provisions of the PATRIOT Act?

Re:Land crossing question

[josecanuc]

I once traveled to Canada (Vancouver) from the U.S. on a business trip and was held for about 3 hours by Canadian customs and interrogated and had my luggage searched, along with my 2 co-workers.

They wouldn't tell us why they were doing it, or what they suspected. We were just going to a couple of business meetings and heading back 2 days later.

That was my first visit to Canada -- I've been back with no problems. It was odd, though.

On a semi-related (to the parent) note: I had a friend who went to Lebanon as part of a college group. He was Canadian, but all of his fellow travelers were American. They took a side trip to Damascus (in Syria) and at the border, the Americans were held and interrogated, but they saw his Canadian passport and said "Canadians are all-right, go on through!" (or something to that effect)

Re:Land crossing question

[TGK]

Your point is well taken and you're right, hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in Iraq alone.

That said, in a discussion of threats to American security, it seems logical to speak of casualties in terms of American casualties.

Re:Land crossing question

[Marcus Aanerud]

It's amusing that you didn't attempt to answer the question.

Re:Land crossing question

[strider44]

Why? Don't you think if you kill the mother, father, children and siblings of a person they'll be slightly pissed off? I'd say a person of that situation with a personal reason to attack a country would be more of a danger to security than someone who's politically motivated, as were the Soviets in the Cold War. However, when you kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, you quite easily make a personal grudge out of just about anyone.

I wonder how the number of US Soldiers that were killed by Iraqi Military doing their job contrasts to the number of US Soldiers that were killed by Iraqi Civilians.

Re:Land crossing question

[Phantasmo]

Do Canadians get fingerprinted and photographed at the border like all us other foreign criminals?

I considered myself lucky to make it through the border last year when driving to New York. Thankfully the guard didn't ask for more details. She asked how we (people in the car) knew each other (from church) but not which church (Unitarian Universalists) and where we were going (a conference in NYC) but not which conference (Hackers on Planet Earth).

For all she knew we were a bunch of baptists going to a sing-along... or whatever baptists do.

I've heard that we will be fingerprinted "soon." If that's so, no HOPE-6 for me.

Re:Land crossing question

[Nos.]

Frequently, they will do mass searches, where they search everyone crossing the border. I remeber travelling down to the US (from Sask into North Dakota) for a graduation (my sister had finished a Speech Path degree in Minot). On the trip down, we pulled up to the US crossing, we barely even stopped. Told the guard we were headed to Minot for a grad, and they waved us on. The trip back, pulled up to the Canadian side, and were directed to a lineup where every vehicle was being searched.
Its just something they do once in a while. Also, anytime that union is performing job action (they don't really go on strike) they begin by searching everybody to slow down the crossings and impede business, which puts pressure on the Gov't... well you get the idea.

Re:Land crossing question

[Scudsucker]

Do you think for one minute gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Nope. They only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while the criminals keep their guns.

Blah blah blah. How much does smuggled cocaine cost? How much do you think the price of guns would go up if they were actually banned, UK style, and had to be smuggled into the country? Considering that most criminals are poor - it's one reason why they're criminals in the first place - it would be a lot harder for them to get a gun, much less a good gun. Not to mention the fact that contrary to what you gun nuts seem to think, a gun is not a magical talisman, and going for it is a good way to get yourself shot first.

Re:Land crossing question

[mtrupe]

Okay- how about this. I own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. Its a hobby and its fun. Are you telling me I shouldn't be allowed to do this? You think more government should tell me what I can and cannot own? Are you nuts?

Should the government ban everything that has the potential to be dangerous.

Freedom is dangerous, so I guess we should ban freedom altogether.

People like you scare me.

Re:Land crossing question

[Scudsucker]

Yes they did. However, there is a difference between signing legislation sight unseen (stupid) and authoring/pushing it in the first place. I'll take stupidity over malicious behavior any day.

Re:Land crossing question

[Roger_Wilco]

Do Canadians get fingerprinted and photographed at the border like all us other foreign criminals?

No, we don't get fingerprinted or photographed.

Incidentally, flying from Canada to the US from most cities, the US customs stage takes place within Canada. The only exception I am aware of is flying from Halifax (though the plan is to add this by 2008 (?)).

Re:Land crossing question

[udowish]

Nope, I have dual cit..and never have and never will. Yankee tried that but then Canada said fine we will do the same so it was dropped.

Re:Land crossing question

[bigberk]

Do Canadians get fingerprinted and photographed at the border like all us other foreign criminals? ... I wonder how many terrorists this amazingly intrusive and expensive system has actually caught.

It's about to get crazier. The Dept. of Homeland security has now announced that visitors will be monitored with RFID (press release end of January). It sounds too crazy to be true, but the press release is from dhs.gov. As a Canadian business person, this will probably just keep me from visiting the USA. Hell, I already conduct my business in euros, it doesn't make a difference to me.

Re:Land crossing question

[justins]

It is common in Europe that you need to present identification when checking into a hotel.

You need to do that here, too, for the most part. The big difference being that Europe has laws regarding how the information is handled. A hotel here in the US can sell your name and the fact that you stayed at their hotel on a certain date to the highest bidder.

Re:Land crossing question

[DigitalWallaby]

Do you need a fully automatic, or even a semi-automatic weapon to enjoy target shooting?

Re:Land crossing question

[sgtrock]

I have seen exactly one primary source that places estimates of Iraqi dead since July 2003 at 150,000+. However, I have seen a rebuttal that states that at least some of that number was inflated by counting cemetaries of people killed by Saddam's forces over the past 10 years in acts of reprisals. Other people challenge the perception that those deaths were directly caused by American or coalition action, as it is extremely difficult to differentiate from hospital records whether a boy brought in with a gunshot wound was shot by a terrorist or coalition soldier. It's even more difficult to determine whether that act was deliberate or accidental.

Look, I happen to think that Bush Jr. is a moron who is surrounded by manipulative, deceitful, assholes. He got into the war with Iraq for all the wrong reasons, and has no clear exit strategy. All the lessons learned by people like Caspar Weinberger from Vietnam were forgotten or ignored.

I also think his father missed a bet when he didn't at least ASK his coalition if they wanted to go to Baghdad or not in '91. The Saudis were certainly ready for us to after Saddam dropped some Patriots on 'em.

However, the real question that should be asked is; would the Iraqis trade that death toll, real or not, for going back to the status quo? Given the extremely high turnout for last weekend's elections, I'd say that the question has been rather eloquently answered, don't you?

Re:Land crossing question

[katsiris]

That's absolutely ridiculous. Um, no, you can't fingerprint me since you're not allowing me entry. Seriously, I don't know what I would've done (probably what you did) but damn it if I wouldn't raise hell.

Re:Land crossing question

[katsiris]

No way anyone's planting a chip on/in me to visit their bloody country.

Also, from your press release:

"Because of US-VISIT biometric technology, the United States has arrested or denied admission to more than 407 people."

So what? 408 people? How many of these were turned back unneccesarily?

Re:Land crossing question

[mtrupe]

Maybe. I don't happen to own an auto or semi-auto. Semi-autos can be nice for killing bad guys if they break into your house with the intent to harm you.

I gather from your question that you are againsts semi-automatic weapons, and perhaps therefore home defense. But it only takes one round to kill someone.

A hate to sound cliche, but a gun is tool. It can be used for good or bad, like a knife or a baseball bat. Should we outlaw everything that may be used to harm someone?

Re:Land crossing question

[Ced_Ex]

Okay- how about this. I own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. Its a hobby and its fun. Are you telling me I shouldn't be allowed to do this? You think more government should tell me what I can and cannot own? Are you nuts?

The laws here aren't saying that you can't own guns. They are meant to control guns, in a similar way that the DOT controls automobiles. The big problem the gun owners have here is having to register the gun with the government. This is so the govt knows who has guns and who doesn't. Also, there are certain guns that are banned as they are deemed unfit. Sort of like why is it necessary to own a high powered assault rifle when all you want to do is go deer hunting. You don't need a 30 round clip to do that.

Geez, you really need to do some research before you start making wild claims and assumptions.

Re:Land crossing question

[ansak]

Probably only those who were -born- in one of the "axis of evil" countries, since a passport does reveal birthplace.

Someone praised Canada for back-bone a couple posts back. Dream on. Most of our federal political parties want to go along with that inflammatory ineffective missile defense system in the face of a population that's mostly split between those who oppose it and those who have no clear opinion.

cheers...ank

Re:Land crossing question

[selsine]

I totally agree. I've been telling this to people for years, and mostly received puzzled looks. At least I'm not alone.

I'm Canadian, by the by.

Re:Land crossing question

[DigitalWallaby]

Except that most of the time, the bad guys take the gun from you and kill you.

I'm not against home defence as such, but the fact of the matter is that you wouldn't need weapons for home defence in the first place if guns weren't so widespread.

Still, you make my point for me. It only takes one round. A six shooter should be enough for home defence. An automatic works because because it sprays a huge amount of lead in the general direction of what you want to kill. A semi-automatic follows the same principle. Rapid dispersal of lead with out needing to manually load a bullet into the chamber. In most cases it's just not needed.

In Australia, the easiest way to stop a break-in is to get an alarm system, and make it visible to the street. The odds of getting broken into, when I installed mine a few years ago, were one in four unprotected homes go broken into. Install an alarm and the odds go down to one in twenty.

The fact is that most break and enters are drug related. A simple consequence of the drug prohibition. Legalising, or decriminalising drugs, and taking the distribution away from organised criminals would go a long way to easing violent crime and break-ins.

Sure a gun is a tool. It's a tool with only one use, killing other people. A knife has a few non-violent uses, as does a baseball bat.

Re:Land crossing question

[CrimsonAvenger]

Compare to the War on Terror where casualties have been measued in the thousands

That is misleading and/or incorrect. The correct statement is: Compare to the War on Terror where American casualties have been measued in the thousands

Umm, no. The casualties he mentioned for the Cold War were also American casualties. It is perfectly reasonable to compare American casualties in two different "wars", just as it is to compare total casualties in two different "wars". Comparing total casualties in one war with American casualties in another war is "misleading and/or incorrect"

Re:Land crossing question

[mtrupe]

"Sure a gun is a tool. It's a tool with only one use, killing other people."

And target shooting (which is very fun, you really should try it), hunting, and person defense. I'm also glad cops carry guns.

I don't think we should outlaw "stuff" because bad people misuse such things. Why punish the good people because of the bad people?

Re:Land crossing question

[Nimey]

I got the same thing from Missouri's two senators and Rep Roy Blunt. Since they're my only "representatives" in Congress, I'm screwed.

Re:Land crossing question

[selsine]

I think:

"killing other people" == "person defense"

Either way the American constitution says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm a big fan of the "well regulated" part.

Re:Land crossing question

[|<amikaze]

Okay- how about this. I own a gun. I enjoy target shooting. Its a hobby and its fun. Are you telling me I shouldn't be allowed to do this? You think more government should tell me what I can and cannot own? Are you nuts?

I'm Canadian. Been one my whole life. I've shot thousands and thousands of rounds. I think the gun control laws up here are dumb, not because they restrict my freedoms, but because they're generally quite pointless. Really, the only people who will be denied licenses for firearms are convicted felons or people with a history of mental illness.

On a different note... The government also requires me to purchase a drivers license to operate a vehicle which has the potential to be dangerous. OH MY GOD THEY'RE INFRINGING MY RIGHTS.

The severity of our gun control laws is completely blown out of proportion. I'm sure that if I wanted to, I could quite easily go out and get my FPAC (Firearms possession and acquisition license) with very little difficulty. Hasn't been much of a need though, my family has piles, and I live in a dorm where they probably wouldn't appreciate firearms.

Re:Land crossing question

[FungiFromYuggoth]

The Lancet article was a peer-reviewed estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties since the invasion as around 100,000 as of the fall of last year. Based on the statistics, the true number could be between 5,000 and 200,000, but the highest probability was around 100,000.

The methodology was to compare the rate of deaths before the war and the deaths after the war. If someone dies because Bechtel can't manage to get sewage treatment back on line, that counts as a death related to the US invasion just as surely as a cluster bomb dropped on a house full of civilians.

Note that the WaPo article gets the other casualty count sources wrong - Iraq Body Count is tracking confirmed casualties in the Western media. They acknowledge that they are definitely undercounting, simply because the Western media is not present at all locations where bodies are found.

A sizeable chunk of Iraqis would actually prefer life under Saddam to the current lawless situation. Not all, not even most, but more than you'd like.

The choice between what Bush is doing and Saddam is a false dichotomy. Last year, a majority of Iraqis wanted the Americans to leave immediately - even those who felt that it would increase violence. Apparently, the Bush administration knew better.

Whether or not the initial invasion's benefits outweighed its costs (for the US or the Iraqis), the question about the current occupation is entirely separate.

Given the extremely high turnout for last weekend's elections, I'd say that the question has been rather eloquently answered, don't you?

Not really; the turnout was less than in South Vietnam in 1967. Anyway, how many of those Iraqis went to the polls to vote the Americans out?

Pity about those Iraqi Christians who couldn't vote.

Re:Land crossing question

[DigitalWallaby]

Sorry. Of course target and sports shooting.

We don't have to outlaw guns. As I missed before, there are some legitimate uses. What's needed is a way to prevent guns being used illegitimately.

Australia, as has been mentioned, has some pretty tough gun laws, but people are still allowed to have them. You need to maintain a registration. You can't own certain types without special permission. And for certain weapons, you have to maintain a safe storage. So if you own a handgun which is only allowed for sports use, you have to keep it registered, and in a gunsafe, or at the premises of the shooting club. A bolt action 22 rifle (my fathers gun) has to be registered and stored safely, but not necessarily in a gunsafe.

Consequently, I don't have to worry about drive-by shootings, being mugged by someone with a gun, or otherwise looking down the barrel.

Re:Land crossing question

[FungiFromYuggoth]

I can't find a link (sorry!) but I believe some of the special treatment of Canadians actually derives from the treaty that ended the war of 1812.

Re:Land crossing question

[strelitsa]

Do you need a fully automatic, or even a semi-automatic weapon to enjoy target shooting?

We, Your Government, have decreed that you no longer "need" Ben & Jerry's brand ice cream. It is chock-full of dangerous, obesity-causing fat, it costs a fortune, and it rots your teeth. We have determined that you instead "need" to consume official Government-approved low-calorie ice cream snacks (and your ration is one per day, citizen). Therefore, to protect you from yourself, Your Government is going to nationalize B&J and confiscate every pint of their ice cream still in your grocer's freezer section.

Now knuckle your forehead like a good serf and show some gratitude that Your Government knows better than you what's good for you. You know we are right.

Re:Land crossing question

[jc42]

"Oh, you're canadian! You don't need this! Welcome to America! Next!!!".

This sort of thing is fairly routine in many countries, even where there are serious frictions.

For example, I've known a number of people who described being waved through security like this when they get off a plane in Israel. The reason is that they have spent sufficient time there to speak Hebrew quite well. When the security people hear them speaking fluent Hebrew, the reaction is a few friendly, casual words welcoming them. It's a "You're one of us" reaction.

On a couple of occasions, I've wondered out loud what would happen when they Palistinian radicals realize that what they need is a few fluent Hebrew speakers. The answer inevitably is "Oh, we know a number of such Arabs, just as we know Israeli Jews who are fluent in Arabic." But, they explain, anyone who is fluent in both languages inevitably has a lot of friends in the other group, understands the other culture, and doesn't take a "they're all evil" attitude. You might as well welcome them and speed them through security checks, because they're exactly the sort of people you want around you.

Others can probably describe other places in the world where the same reasoning applies.

Whether it actually always works is another question. It's probably a lot more reliable with a minor language like Hebrew than it would be with English. It's possible to become fluent in American or British English without spending any time in the country.

Re:Land crossing question

[DigitalWallaby]

There's a hell of a lot of difference between the government banning something like ice-cream where, if misused, can only hurt yourself, and banning guns which are commonly used to hurt and kill other people. There's enough straw in that argument to create an army of scarecrows.

The difference is that gun control is a law and order issue, and that ice-cream control is a health issue. You can't use ice-cream to hold up a liquor store, or to murder your spouse... at least over the short term.

"Hand over all your money, or I'll use the neopolitan."

Re:Land crossing question

[vistic]

"Nice with the Ghostbusters ref, though I doubt many people got it."

Because... afterall... Ghostbusters is such an obscure, cult movie that no one ever saw. I know only us cool people know about it. We are "in the know."

Re:Land crossing question

[FungiFromYuggoth]

... and allowing them to be used as investigative tools (again with court orders) against terrorists

Substantial parts of the PATRIOT act can be used without any kind of court order. The 'sneak-and-peek' provisions can be carried out without the government ever telling you that you were searched or investigated.

The ACLU and EFF have pages up about the PATRIOT Act, and clearly show how the effects are not limited to "terrorists". (Unless, like Ashcroft, you feel that breasts and calico cats are weapons of mass destruction.)

More importantly, can you give me the number of people whose civil liberties have *actually* been violated (N.B. not those who "felt" they were violated) under specific provisions of the PATRIOT Act?

Not easily, because it's secret. I can certainly say that Maher Arar had his civil liberties violated, but since the US government won't talk about it, it's hard to say whether it was PATRIOT-related or just plain extra-legal.

Of course, you may feel that using the PATRIOT act against pot-smugglers is excessive.

Re:Land crossing question

[DigitalWallaby]

They got their guns because the guns were readily available. If the guns were harder to get, then those fourteen year old gangsters doing the drive-by would find it much harder to get a fully automatic weapon. I can guarantee you that the young gangsters in Australia are much less likely to be able to do an American style drive-by.

The problem is Chicago is attached to Illinois, and Illinois is attached to a bunch of other states where presumably it's a short drive across the state line to a place where guns are not illegal. Also, presumably, you don't get searched when crossing state lines.

The evidence is that countries where gun ownership is restricted also have very low incidences of violent gun crime. But, close minded conservatives could care less about such evidence. They seem to say, "To hell with everyone else! It's my right, damn it!"

Re:Land crossing question

[zx75]

Don't worry, the first two numbers for Korea and Vietnam were both only for american causualties too.

Re:Land crossing question

[damian cosmas]

"Substantial parts of the PATRIOT act can be used without any kind of court order."

Warrentless searches are nothing new. FISA allowed them.

"The ACLU and EFF have pages up about the PATRIOT Act,"

Without even following those links, I'm gonna guess that neither the ACLU or the EFF likes the PATRIOT Act. It's almost like they're civil-liberties activist pressure groups!

"and clearly show how the effects are not limited to "terrorists"."

I never said PATRIOT was limited to terrorists, merely that RICO and FISA were inadequate and ill-suited for foreign terrorists not acting on behalf of a foreign government.

Re: Mr. Arar, I defy you to quote the provision of the PATRIOT Act allowing for kidnapping and extradition to Syria.

"Of course, you may feel that using the PATRIOT act against pot-smugglers is excessive"

Hardly. After all, the "Millenium Bomb Plot" was foiled by a customs agent looking for drugs!

Re:Land crossing question

[DunbarTheInept]

That might have more to do with the size of the airport than where it's located. They prefer to do customs at whichever end is less swamped, to help balance the workload and decrease the wait.

Re:Land crossing question

[DunbarTheInept]

Due to the great lakes, Michigan's borders with Canada are easily defendable pinch-points. The ones who've really got to worry are out west. That's a really long straight land border - plenty of places for dirty Canuks to sneak across in the great plains, sending a patrol of mounties or commandoes in hockey armor to cause trouble.

Re:Land crossing question

[fiftyfly]

If you think China and Russia are some kind of benevolent white knights riding to rescue the world from US oppression

Hmmm there might be a few people here and there with something to say on the subject. This country was founded by a coalition of the God fearing who felt they had the mandate of said deity to, well, systematically mince the world and reform it in their image. Yum - tastes like McNuggets.

Native Tribe of Kanatak, Sitka Tribe of Alaska, The Stikine Tribes, Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribe, Cherokee Tribe of Northeast Alabama, The Poarch Band of Creek Indians, United Cherokee Ani-Yun-Wiya Nation, Akimel O'odham Gila River Community, The Hopi Tribe, The Navajo Nation, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation , Agua Caliente Band of Cahullia Indians, Barona Band of Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Costanoan-Ohlone Indians (www.indiancanyon.org), Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe of Chino California, Esselen Tribe of Monterey County, Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe of San Gabriel, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Kashaya Band of Pomo Indians, Konkow Valley Band of Maidu, Kumeyaay Nation, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe, Ohlone/Costanoan Esselen Nation, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Pinoleville Band of Pomo Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Tsnungwe Council, Wiyot Tribe, The Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, , The Golden Hill Indians of the Paugussett Indian Nation, The Mohegan Tribe, Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indian Tribal Nation, The Nanticoke People, The Seminole Tribe of Florida, Coeur d'Alene Indians, Delawares of Idaho, The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Lemhi-Shoshone Indian Community, Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, The Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, United Tribe of Shawnee Indians, Wyandot Nation of Kansas, Sovereign Nation of the Chitimacha, Sovereign Nation of the Coushatta Tribe, Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, The Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine, Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, Pocomoke Indian Nation, Cowasuck Band of the Pennacook-Abenaki People, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Indian Community, The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians , Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Sandy Lake Band of Ojibwe, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Blackfeet Nation of Montana, Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, Powhatan Renape Nation, Ramapough Mountain Indians, Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, Pueblo of Sandia, Oneida Indian Nation, The Seneca Nation of Indians, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Lumbee Tribe, , Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Munsee Delaware Indian Nation - USA, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, The Cherokee Nation, The Chickasaw Nation, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Comanche Nation, Delaware (Lenni Lenape) Tribe of Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, Osage Nation of Oklahoma, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, The Shawnee Tribe, Wichita and Affilliated Tribes, Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuislaw, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community, Confederated Tribes of Siletz, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, The Klamath Tribes, Narragansett Indian Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Traditional Abenaki of Mazipskwik & Related Bands, Monacan Indian Nation, Wicocomico Indian Nation, The Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis, The Confederated Tribes of the Colvill

Re:Land crossing question

[DigitalWallaby]

"Lets just outlaw everything that might be bad for us. It can be like Logan's Run or something Fun!" You can do that if you want. Personally, I'd rather have restrictions on things that are used by certain groups to primarily hurt OTHER people. These people use guns because they WANT to hurt other people.

On the other hand, most drivers don't want to get drunk and hurt someone. If they do they should have their licence revoked and do time.

It's funny how people like you equate giving up a right that really has very little use to living in a police state. Back in Oz, even with laws banning guns, I am free to do most other things that you do in the US. In fact I am more free, since I don't have to worry about getting shot if I accidently drive through the wrong area, or if I am walking in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re:Land crossing question

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Warrentless searches are nothing new. FISA allowed them.

Untrue. FISA allowed searches to be authorized by a secret court. That court would routinely mark up warrant requests if they felt they were excessive and out of line.

The information gleaned from those warrants, of course, was used for intelligence gathering and not prosecution. There's a qualitative difference when the judicial branch cannot approve or disapprove, and the information will later be used in a criminal case.

There is a big difference between using PATRIOT to search for terrorists, and using PATRIOT to justify questionable wiretaps in a drug smuggling case. There's a rather substantial difference between searches for drugs that find terrorists, and using "anti-terrorist" legislation against known drug offenders.

I admire your technique of not reading links that answer questions you ask - it must help you stay so informed! To repeat, the ACLU is suing over what they feel are excesses in the PATRIOT act, but are not allowed to state what they are in public.

That (combined with your not reading technique) makes it much easier for you to feel the PATRIOT act is OK - after all, you haven't heard about any problems.

Re:Land crossing question

[AndyL]

Because Canadians don't have boats?

Re:Land crossing question

[sgtrock]

The Lancet article was a peer-reviewed estimate of Iraqi civilian casualties ...

I read it, I'm just not sure that I buy it completely. I'll grant you that secondary effects of the war are probably going to kill more people in the long run that bullets do. That always happens, regardless of the time of the conflict. It's one reason why you find so few veterans who think war is a great way to solve anything.

The choice between what Bush is doing and Saddam is a false dichotomy....

You're assuming something about my position that is not true. I said in my GP post that I thought Bush went into this war for all the wrong reasons. Part of that is because I predicted to my friends last year that this war was a mistake because I was positive that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, & Co. had absolutely no clue as it pertained to the Iraqi civilian attitudes. The proof in that was their complete surprise when our troops weren't welcomed with open arms.

Not really; the turnout was less than in South Vietnam in 1967.

True, but I'm not sure that the situations are completely analogous. Very different political situations. Don't forget, in South Vietnam you had a regime that had taken over in a particularly bloody fashion in '62 or '63. I think people in South Vietnam wanted a clean government, but really didn't expect to get one.

Actually, it wasn't even the high numbers in Iraq that impressed me as much as widespread pictures of people celebrating in the streets after. It looked very much like an affirmation of their identities as Iraqis as opposed to Kurds, Sunnis, what have you. That's not to say that there isn't a ton of work to be done, but it was a positive first step.

Anyway, how many of those Iraqis went to the polls to vote the Americans out?

All of 'em! :)

Re:Land crossing question

[TGK]

He'd defending the point I didn't make and didn't mean to make... but will someone mod this guy up? I knew my country fucked over a lot of people and did so... well... really just for the hell of it... but that's a big list.

Re:Land crossing question

[DunbarTheInept]

invading a country by boat takes a hell of a lot of build-up and effort - it's many times harder than doing it by land, because people typically don't have enough boats around to carry whole armies at once. It took years of buildup to create the armada of D-Day, and the problem wasn't numbers of troops. It was numbers of boats.

Re:Land crossing question

[damian cosmas]

"Untrue. FISA allowed searches to be authorized by a secret court. That court would routinely mark up warrant requests if they felt they were excessive and out of line."

No warrantless searches under FISA? Then why the introduction of a bill in 1990 to end the practice of warrantless searches allowed by FISA? What have our poor, misguided Congrefsmen been doing? Someone really must have pulled the wool over their eyes!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/con gr ess/1990_cr/h900912-search.htm
http://www.fas.org /irp/congress/1990_cr/h901017-ia 1.htm

The difference between using the PATRIOT Act to catch drug traffickers instead of terrorists, IMNSHO, is no different than using, say, the RICO Act to catch financial reporters (cf. Foster Winans) instead of the "mafia". In both cases, bad people who break our laws end up in jail. What's the problem with that?

Re:Land crossing question

[MajroMax]

To -actually answer the parent's question,- Canadian citizens do not get fingerprinted at land border crossings with the US. Unlike most other first-world countries, Canada isn't a "Visa Waiver" country -- technically speaking, Canadian citizens don't even need passports to enter the US, although they need proof of citizenship and photo-ID.

The same holds true for US citizens visiting Canada.

Re:Land crossing question

[strelitsa]

The difference is that gun control is a law and order issue, and that ice-cream control is a health issue.

Both are actually Constitutional issues, at least where I come from. The right to bear arms is not one grudgingly allowed to me by the latest politician flavor-of-the-month in Washington DC, it is granted to me by my God. I still have the right in a free society to wolf down as much B&Js as I can hold, and I have a similar right to own and legally use firearms. And as long as I don't use them to unlawfully injure or kill others, it is frankly none of your business or none of Sarah Brady's business how many I have.

I own and/or control a lot of property, I have a lot of firearms, I have barrels of cosmoline, and I have plenty of buriable containers. The nanny state busybodies will never, EVER legislate my Constitutional rights out from under me. And if they somehow manage to rewrite the law here to do so, they will light a match that sets off the largest popular protest and resistance movement in the US since the US Civil War. Bank on it.

Re:Land crossing question

[zakezuke]

The only reason I've ever been asked for ID here in the US is if I'm using a credit card or checking transaction. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with tracking, but everything to do with making sure you are the person who OWNS said credit card or checks. Damn these conspiracy theorists are really getting wacky nowadays.

Hotels have a few forms to fill out. Paying cash usually results in the person behind the desk saying, "Oh you don't have to fill that out". Nice for me so I don't have to run out to the car to get my car license plate number. I said nothing about tracking or privacy, conspiracies or tinfoil hats. I imagine if you liked your privacy, conspiracies, and tinfoil hats you could follow the same approach. For me it's nice when i've been driving for far too long and can't focus on paperwork.

I don't know the rules on hotels whether or not they are requred by law to ask for ID and keep a valid register.

Re:Land crossing question

[Skater]

Why? The end result is the same. And the fact of the matter is that the Democrats weren't stupid - they voted for it because they thought it would help them get reelected, not because they thought it was right for the country.

They're just as guilty. At a time when we needed people to stand up and say, "This is wrong," they didn't. They caved to serve their own interests. I know here on /. Democrats can do no wrong, so this argument is just falling on deaf ears.

Re:Land crossing question

[sukotto]

It's "Hoser", faker :-)

Re:Land crossing question

[MarkRose]

Hosehead is also used. That's what we called a guy at my last place of employment. I'm proudly Canadian.

Re:Land crossing question

[UnHolier than ever]

Actually, I am french-canadian. My accent is very noticeable. It was really the passport. But, while it does not apply to this particular case, I think your argument makes a lot of sense.

Re:Land crossing question

[LilGuy]

I agree whole heartedly with your response. Perhaps instead of merely observing, as so many of us have been doing for so long now, we should do something about it.

We need to gather together, organize, and discuss. We need a large forum for doing so. I'm tired of all the whining, and I think most others are as well. We need an open forum for debate.

Any suggestions on how/where to go? I have heard so many people in recent weeks talking about how piss poor everything is going, and how no one can do anything about it, that I feel its time to find a way for all these people to gather.

Perhaps a large website dedicated to this goal will help get the ball rolling? We could form committies in our respective communities from there.

I don't know how these things work.

All I know is we need to be heard.

Privacy laws extend internationally

[Anonymous Coward]

US companies with data on citizens of European Union countries have to follow the European Privacy laws. So, the situation is more complex than just the US extending its law internationally, othe countries do so as well.

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[MarkRose]

Why? Because it's cheaper to outsource. And it's not just outsourcing -- for instance, some forms of specialised data recovery are only performed in the US -- and the US government would then be at liberty to snatch any and all information without telling anyone, and under a gag order. This nearly happened when the Government of British Columbia (a province) held a practice data recovery exercise, and real data was sent to an IBM lab in the US. The government is legitimately concerned.

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[Anonymous Coward]

My company has a service hosted in the US of A. (We are Australian.) The service provider had to sign contracts ensuring that 'our' state and federal privacy laws would be upheld. PATRIOT (afaik) lets the FBI / CIA / Secret Service wander up to any data store and say 'hand it over, and don't tell them that you have.'

This seems to explicitly and secretly *breach* any privacy laws extended to the service provider.

I am lobbying for my company to cancel the service and host locally (maybe with a different product) as I value the privacy of our customers and their information.

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[nuggz]

The problem is if the US government demands the US company hand over data via the Patriot act, they have to.
So this could result in a messy case of a US company having to decide to follow the US law, or the EU law. In this case the company is screwed, unfortunately the fear is a US company would rather break a foreign law then the US law.

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[mottie]

its a pretty sad state of affairs when you have to specify that BC is a province. Oh well, at least you didn't have to explain that a province is "kind of like a state, but canadian"

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[KontinMonet]

British Columbia is a province? I thought it was a town somewhere near Scotland....


(A joke, BTW)

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[nbert]

There is a flaw in this argument, because those European privacy laws have different intentions than the Patriot Act (I guess I don't really have to explain the differences).

And as for your second point:
If I'm for example buying a book at amazon.de (having created an account there) they have to obey German/EU privacy laws, because they are doing business in Germany. Since I can log into amazon.com with my account I don't really believe that they are following the official safe harbor policy, but in principle they have to respect the laws of the countries they do business in, which has nothing to do with the EU extending laws beyond their borders.

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[will_die]

All of this existed before the US Patriot act, as far as this story is concered everything in it could of happened before.
Alot of what they complain about was more freely allowed under C-36.

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[will_die]

So how does could of happened before the US Patriot act differ from could of after after the passage of the US Patriot act?

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[malsdavis]

How does this work for the UK then?

Because the UK's Data Protection Act states quite clearly that personal data may not be supplied to any company/organisation residing in a country where Data Prtoection laws are not as strong as in the UK.

Normally this stops details being sent to countries like China and russia where organised criminal gangs are likely to get hold of it.

But if in the USA, the government can start peeping into whatever personal information they want then surely that would place American companies in breech of the Data Protection act and therefor make it illegal for any UK company to transmit data to a USA based company.

Is this correct or are UK companies already not supposed to do so due to the lack of (as strict) Data Protection laws in the USA?

Re:Privacy laws extend internationally

[MarkRose]

I specifically say it's a province, because I've had Americans thinking I was talking about Columbia, the South American country before. It's better to prevent confusion than to assume knowledge.

Allow me to clarfiy

[alexwcovington]

The Patriot Act was the result of Paranoia... Of people willing to endorse anything if it was security-related. I would still like to count Canada as a US friend, even if half the politicians down here call it "Canuckistan"...

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Anonymous Coward]

as opposed to the post election dumbfuckistan?
http://shotgun.shacknet.nu:81/mapofnewamerica.gif

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[geminidomino]

Hell, half of my Canadian buddies (mostly known through UF) call it "Canuckistan" too.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Grey Ninja]

As a Canadian, I just want to assure you that we do indeed refer to ourselves as being Canuckistani. It's absolutely hilarious to be talking to an American about Canuckistan. I remember one time I was playing America's Army, and I was going on about how we shared a border with Russia, and were the country furthest north. The guy I was talking to never clued in.

On that note, I just want to mention that Canadians are rarely seriously offended by Americans. We just think they are good for humor value if nothing else. :)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Grey Ninja]

Since when did I ever claim the ACs on Slashdot were any good?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[anonicon]

You guys can call it whatever you want, but I'm just relieved that there's a big country to the north to escape to if the residents of Dumfuckistan pull more stupid stunts.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually we Canadians think the USA sucks. I used to like the USA quite a bit and was never one to join the crowd here in feeling superior to the Yanks. That's all changed since George W. Bush revealed himself as an evil toad creature wrapped in a country buffoon costume. (By the way, wake up, you're being rulled by an evil toad creature. Look! Toad creature! Evil! OK, don't say we never said anything to warn you, you stupid assholes.)

My wife and I used to enjoy taking car trips to the USA but we won't do it anymore due to crazy requirements for photos and fingerprints when entering the country. Whenever possible, we try not to buy American products, or from American owned stores. Way to lose business, folks!

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Dashing Leech]

"Let's make fun of them so we can feel all smug and righteous."

No, we make fun of them as a means of highlighting your ignorance in hopes you will do something about it. That most Americans don't know jack about the rest of the world is news. We don't make fun to feel smug and righteous. We make fun because we're concerned about your massive ignorance of worldly events and how it drives your politics. If you checked out the "Talking to Americans" website from the grandparent post, you'll see that most of it was talking to American politicians and some "influential" celebrities. These are the people that influence what Americans believe and are supposed to know about the world around them, and they clearly don't.

But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people. We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election. (OK, in 2000 you didn't know G. W. was a fuckup, but this time you should have.) We are, however, often offended by American politicians and media. Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive. But when you don't have real politicians and media who actually research and analyze things first, there's nothing to compare to and realize how stupid it looks.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Pig Hogger]

I remember one time I was playing America's Army, and I was going on about how we shared a border with Russia, and were the country furthest north. The guy I was talking to never clued in.

The US, too, shares a border with Russia (both soviet and post-soviet).

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Grey Ninja]

Nah, I just figured that I would dumb down the language so the Americans would get it. ;-)

Actually, it's become sort of habitual with me, given that I am a programmer with a love for graphics. That generally encourages spelling colour as color. But I am NOT backing down on grey.

Although "zed" will likely be the next thing to be taken out of my speech. I currently work for a call centre that does outsourcing work for a major American ISP. Given that Americans in general aren't all that happy about jobs being taken out of the country, it's recommended to us to use Americanisms in our speech to avoid agitating the customers further. Also, when you tell an American to type "zed" on the keyboard, half the time they actually type in "zed", rather than "z".

And I have no idea why I just typed all this up. I should really go to bed instead of trolling Slashdot.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[dave1791]

Let me get this straight... You judge a people based on a single politician voted in on the slimest of majorities? It is a good thing I know some Canadians in person and you are not defining the country for me.

And why am I responding to an AC?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Anonymous Coward]

We just think they are good for humor value [comcast.net] if nothing else. :)

You must enjoy being brainwashed. Americans wonder why 9 of 10 of our provinces are the lowest average standard of living in North America when compared to the states. And the 10th province isn't far up the list. They must think the people are stupid or the government is a mess.

Big government socialist types, like Adolph Hitler, use persecution and targeted humour to manage the masses. Most Canadians are too stupid to realize this. CBC for example, oh they criticise government only to a point to get some perception they are worth the billions of government dollars but the reporting is biased.

Reality is, American people are no different than Canadians. In fact, many Americans and Canadians have relatives accross the border.

There isn't a working Canadian I know of that would suffer for 9 more stars on the flag. Let PQ go to france. At least the US had a civil war and solved their indifferences many years ago.

Canada is a great place because of it's people, not because of it's government. But there are plenty of good Americans too.

A Canadian sick of mindless American hate mongers.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Grey Ninja]

I'm likely to be completely roasted for this... but I just can't resist saying that I've always thought that that's probably what the British Loyalists said during the American Revolution.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Squareball]

This is smoke and mirrors. The canadian government is in on it too. Just look up Echelon. They have agreements with the US, UK etc. to spy on it's citizens. They are part of this globalist movement but they come out with things like this to make it appear that they are not. Next they'll be telling you that to save you from the US they need to take some of your liberty away. Just wait.. it's all coming to a neighborhood near you.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Grey Ninja]

BTW, hopefully you can be as eloquent in Arabic and Farsi--you might need to in the future.

You have absolutely no idea how funny I found your post. Especially that last line. Thanks for brightening up my day just a little. =) (I am SO linking to this post next time the discussion comes up on Slashdot, rather than the Talking to Americans videos)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Grey Ninja]

If you say so. ;-) I have no idea WHY it would make me angry and vindictive, but I'll just go with it. Sounds good anyways. (and I'm still laughing, so I can be quite agreeable)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[qray]

We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election. (OK, in 2000 you didn't know G. W. was a fuckup, but this time you should have.)

Now there's an attitude that will gain one respect.

Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive

Shoot, most people don't spend enough time with their kids due to job and various self center activities. You expect them to take time out to do research and actually check what a politician says? I guess the rest of the world must have an abundance of free time and be much more selfless to be so well informed.

Regardless of that, from what I've seen, it's more of who's sound bites do you like more. I've seen very few politicians stand up and be refreshingly honest and speak his heart. Kerry certainly didn't do that. Kerry couldn't even agree with himself. So Bush may have messed up, but why vote for someone who would have probably made a bigger mess out of things.
--
fordtod mostu grantard boxwog

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[ShieldWolf]

"...and I was going on about how we shared a border with Russia, and were the country furthest north."

As a Canadian I need to clarify a couple of points:

1) Canada DOES NOT share a border with Russia, we only have a border with the USA.

2) Canada IS NOT the northern most country. That would be Greenland (Denmark).

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[sk8king]

And being Canadian I want to assure you that myself and the other two Canadians in my presence have never heard the term Canuckistan, but we're from Northwestern Ontario so the closest city is 4 hours away [and it is in the U.S.].

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Marthisdil]

But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people. We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election. (OK, in 2000 you didn't know G. W. was a fuckup, but this time you should have.) We are, however, often offended by American politicians and media. Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive. But when you don't have real politicians and media who actually research and analyze things first, there's nothing to compare to and realize how stupid it looks.

Ah - so the first American president to win the election, both in electoral votes AND popular votes in oh, however many years, is a fuckup? But you can say that John Kerry (or any of the other candidates) wasn't one? OK...If you say so Frenchy.

No country, or it's people, or it's politicians, or it's laws, are perfect. Not here in America, not up there in Canada, not in France, Britain, Germany, Iraq, anywhere.

But, a lot of us Americans are sick and fucking tired of seeing the lackadasical people of most of the world, let bullshit like what Saddam was getting away with, happen. Yes - we SHOULD have taken him out back in '91...I'll agree, 100%, with that. We should NOT have left Iraq as a huge void by just picking up and leaving, which caused another 10 years of issues. But anyone who doesn't think Saddam had the capability to do much more evil things than he did (and if you don't believe he gassed his own people, instead believing him about Iran doing it, that's your own problem), has some serious mental issues.

It's so funny hearing the words from those who think that they're "better" because they don't have the capability to make any real difference in the world.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[gobbo]

Sorry, but if Americans deem to tell the rest of the world what to do (including Canadians!), put military bases in over 100 countries, hijink any trade initiative they near, and play vindictive patriotism games (oh, your country doesn't support our war of agression? ok, burn your flags and deprecate your products) --well, then, they'll just have to put up with people poking fun at them. Frequently.

Power is like that, you open yourself up to ridicule as a matter of fair play. You can't have your Twinkie and eat it too.

Why are a disproportionate number of top hollywood comedians canadian? It might have to do with national outlook.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Spankophile]

HAha. Good troll.

Please refer to the following link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6769602/
I'll even quote some for you.
"The United States took early criticism for being slow to commit cash and political muscle to the relief effort"
"The United States was the first to raise the stakes dramatically in the aid race by pledging $350 million on Friday; it is now behind Australia, Germany and Japan."

So please - by all means make yourself feel better about spending a few bucks on tsunami victims while you kill Iraqi's, increase the defense budget, whittle away your civil rights, and torture people.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Captain Splendid]

Canada is a great place because of it's people, not because of it's government.

Either way, I don't want want metal detectors in my schools, or the majortiy of my taxes wasted on military spending, or to have to live in a fucking country where Tampa, (Tampa!), has an NHL team.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Ced_Ex]

BTW, hopefully you can be as eloquent in Arabic and Farsi--you might need to in the future.

This is because North America has an invading army of Arabic origin?

Last I checked, the Arabs were perfectly fine keeping to themselves when left alone.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DarkFencer]

Yeah, after all he's doing a WHOLE lot in Darfur, Sudan.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[gobbo]

We want to make the world a better place for the oppressed.

Ka-wow, did you really just write that? Many of us in other liberal democracies look at the American system of health care, poverty abatement, and prisons, and shudder. We see oppressive systems that are polluted with inequities and indignities, more so than our own considerable problems. We see the way the trade missions turn countries from an emphasis on self-reliance into exporters of commodity goods based on unequal trade--without mitigating corruption in any way. We see the constant global war, using a thin veil of cries of freedom to pave the way for further inequitable commercial opportunity.

Tell me more about how your concern for the oppressed has affected, for example, the status of women in Iraq? The status of children in Angola? Dissidents in your client countries? Saipan? A century of policy towards Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico? Guatemala? How about pollution from your over 700 international military bases? The list goes on ad infinitum. And AC's, do your research before a kneejerk rebuttal on this one, please.

We see you edging ever closer to a cynical theocracy. You have enough WMD to wipe anyone out, and a national sense of manifest destiny linked with a popular myth of imminent armageddon.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[operagost]

I'm not surprised he didn't clue in, being as Canada doesn't share a border with Russia, unless you just ignore that huge icy mass called the Arctic Ocean. I mean, it can be argued that the USA shares a border with Russia because the Bering Strait is so narrow (and once was iced over -- OMG TEH GLOBALL WARMING!!!!111), but the Arctic is pretty damn big and forbidding.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[operagost]

The USA sent an AIRCRAFT CARRIER and airlifted all the useless freeloading U.N. and "Save the Children" reps who were basically just on tour, clicking their tongues and lamenting over the situation.

God knows how much private citizens contributed, as the media won't report it. I'm sure it's close to as much as the government sent. You see, we don't have a 60% tax rate here so we rely on individuals' free generosity rather than compulsion.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[operagost]

You need to work on your backhanded-complimenting skills.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Ced_Ex]

We want to make the world a better place for the oppressed. We did this for Afghantistan and Iraq already, they both held full free elections for the first time in their countries history. What has your country done to make the world better? Exactly nothing.

You can't even see past your own government and media deception to even begin to understand what your country has done on your behalf.

You haven't made it better for the "opressed". Their lives are crappier now since their country is in full civil war. They never asked for your help. And as far as I can remember, the original reason for going to Iraq was for WMDs! NOT to free the opressed. Funny how the mission statement changes when the objectives couldn't be completed.

Let's just list out the "nothing" that Canada has done. Anytime we deploy our military (as sad as it is), we put them in world hot spots for PEACE KEEPING. We go to places to STOP wars, not to wage them.

Oh, if you want to talk about war, let's talk about WWI, and WWII. Just so you know, Canada was actively participating in the two wars SEVERAL YEARS before the US got involved. So don't ever say we have contributed nothing.

I am by no means trying to bash the US, as they are truly a leading nation. However, I am just sad that with all the resources they have to make the world a better place, they choose not to. I believe just recently that Bill Clinton mentioned that if the US government (notice I say government, as opposed to citizen) just allocated a small fraction of GWB's $80 Billion request for defense funds for Iraq to something like medicines and food, the world would be a better place.

I ask you, can you not think of a better way to spend $80B to make the world a better place than to spend it on weapons used to destroy. Spend it building homes, giving food, clothing. That is how you make a better world.

PS: I don't post anonymously because I truly believe in what I say.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[skarmor]

Ah - so the first American president to win the election, both in electoral votes AND popular votes in oh, however many years, is a fuckup? But you can say that John Kerry (or any of the other candidates) wasn't one? OK...If you say so Frenchy.

Is this honestly how people "debate" in your country? I feel sorry for you.

But, a lot of us Americans are sick and fucking tired of seeing the lackadasical people of most of the world, let bullshit like what Saddam was getting away with, happen.

Horrible acts are commited by numerous political regimes worldwide. Why single out Saddam? If the US is so worried about stopping "evildoers" why didn't they offer any help to the largely unsupported, underfunded Canadian and Belgian troops who tried to stop the Rwandan genocide? Why was no support offered to Canadian peacekeepers in Cyprus or the Golan Heights?

It's so funny hearing the words from those who think that they're "better" because they don't have the capability to make any real difference in the world.

Canada has already done more to promote global peace and security than the US government will ever have the will to do (despite the good intentions of many Americans).

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Ced_Ex]

But, a lot of us Americans are sick and fucking tired of seeing the lackadasical people of most of the world, let bullshit like what Saddam was getting away with, happen

Let me ask you this. Why wasn't the US military in Rwanda when there was a full on genocide? This was going on for such a long time, why didn't the US Gov feel the need to help them?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[LordEd]

so we rely on individuals' free generosity rather than compulsion

Is that really better, having a mass of individuals instead of having it social policy to support those in need?

Up here in Canada, we do both.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, we make fun of them as a means of highlighting your ignorance in hopes you will do something about it. That most Americans don't know jack about the rest of the world is news. We don't make fun to feel smug and righteous. We make fun because we're concerned about your massive ignorance of worldly events and how it drives your politics."

Well, Canadia is in pretty good shape up dere, right? You've got demorcarcy, TV and fast food, so your all set. It's not like we need to know so much about you. Not like Derkaderkastan, where we have to keep our eye out for the terrorists!

"If you checked out the "Talking to Americans" website from the grandparent post, you'll see that most of it was talking to American politicians and some "influential" celebrities. These are the people that influence what Americans believe and are supposed to know about the world around them, and they clearly don't."

You know they only use the hilariously awful footage that they get, right? Anyway, how is one supposed to react when they're told that Canada *something rediculous here*?

"OK, in 2000 you didn't know G. W. was a fuckup, but this time you should have"

Ugh, I knew both times, and so did my state, but we couldn't turn the tide. =P

"We are, however, often offended by American politicians and media. Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive."

Americans agree with you, mostly. We just can't do anything about it. It goes back to that "Talking to Americans" thing - when someone just starts lying to you there is no good response. The effort it takes to lie is smaller than the effort required to disprove the lie. That's true of half truths and distortions also.

Watching Fox News increases the chance that you will have a major misunderstanding about the war in Iraq. The Bush Jr. administration systematically distorts science. That people are taken in by it is neither suprising nor preventable. =( The "Talking to Americans" skit only shows how easy it is to do, even when you mean well.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Wandering Wombat]

But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people. We aren't offened [sic] by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election.

Have you thought that maybe most Americans agree with GWB?

Weeelll..... I believe you just reiterated his response. The fact that you can agree with someone who likes to send kids off to die for a war that the world didn't need tends to illustrate the fact that we have lost respect for you.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[ed]

I imagine Cuba might like to see Guantanamo removed, but might just be a tad frightened to say so

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[flibuste]

Oh! The Bush/Neo-conservative rethoric again! Can you at least think by yourself?

The USA sent an AIRCRAFT CARRIER

Where? Toward the axis of Evil?

useless freeloading U.N

I hope you sent the neo-conservatives to help Asia in your big carrier, and that it'll crash somewhere in the pacific ocean. THAT would be a "relief".

God knows

...that Bush has a stellar mission. Yes, we've heard that one too. As for to make a people count, I'm still waiting for him to send his last version of the list of generous citizens from the USA. Shall I assume that there is none since we've never seen that list? Shall I remind you that the amazing generosity of Germans was saluted worldwide? And that it was PRIVATE, lamba people, money?

You see, we don't have a 60% tax rate here so we rely on individuals' free generosity rather than compulsion

The only country who has such a high level of taxes is a nordic country, there, in Europe (the other part of the world). And funnily enough, it works just fine and people have free available medecine, social protection , decent unemployement wages, etc.

Since you are at showing percentages, did you know that USA has the highest ratio of people under the poverty level of ALL the "modern" countries? A blasting 15% of the population. A shame if you ask me. Maybe there is a reason why people accept to pay taxes in the "other" countries (you know, the "rest" of the world...)

What you say is just the usual blind non-sense from redneck USA. How about you visit the world and change your TV channel once in your life?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[ahodgson]

Well, over 60 million people did vote for Bush. Not that Kerry would have been much of an improvement.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[meadowsp]

So by your reasoning this current president is going to do something about it?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Qzukk]

Tedious twaddle says the coward.

Pray tell, in what country does the U.S. have a military base where the local government seeks the base removed.

Every time an American soldier rapes someone in Japan theres a pretty big push to kick the Americans out. Panama was a pretty risky occupation there for a while when the canal ownership transfer didn't look like it was going too smoothly.

Pray tell, oh enlightened one, about trade barriers.

Very well, lets talk about Iraq, and the oil embargo, and how the US ignores barriers whenever it feels like it. Or how America (and other countries, America isn't alone in this) backs such barriers only when it benefits corporations, not consumers or laborers.

God, please do do tell me just what those 8 million Iraqi's were doing last weekend

Wait, were we there for the election last week? Only months ago it seemed we were there to depose Saddam, and months before that to protect the United States from WMDs, and months before that to protect the United States from Al Quaeda terrorists, all the time using battle maps drawn up before 9/11 when the plan was to go to war for oil.

I'm glad Bush finally got his story in synch with reality. Those votes only cost us about $12 billion each... At that expense you'd think that we could spare the $200 to fly Iraqis in America to one of the 8 voting places set aside for them. With the names of the campaigners not revealed until days before the election, and very few of those even campainging, confusion was rampant, and voters had no choice but to vote randomly. This is the democracy we died for? At least women's rights will be restored to pre-american-interference levels. Who knows, maybe in a decade or two being publically Christian will be non-fatal again.

Oh, and BTW, you people know very little about the Patriot Act

And what do YOU know about it, other than what you've read in the law itself and what little your government admitted to you?

But hey, cowards like you just like to spout off nonsense and run, thinking "gee I showed that guy" when all you really showed is that you can spout off a lot of stuff.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[jc42]

Reminds me of the old geographical trivia question that Americans used to almost always get wrong:

What's the closest Communist country to the US?

The usual answer is Cuba (90 miles).

Until it fell apart, the correct anwer was the USSR (50 miles).

I guess now Americans finally answer the question correctly.

Of course, there have always been wise asses who answer "Canada". And here in The People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts, some people answer "Massachusetts".

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DeputySpade]

Anytime we deploy our military (as sad as it is), we put them in world hot spots for PEACE KEEPING. We go to places to STOP wars, not to wage them."

Okay... I'm confused here. Are you not still using (the threat of) violence to impose your will? Using your country's resources to stop someone else from fighting a war is still interfering in the business of another nation.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[T-Ranger]

Uh, we do share a border with Russia. Borders can go over water, too.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[jc42]

Actually, there are lots of educated Americans who consider "colour", and "color" to be normal alternate spellings of the word, as are "gray" and "grey". I routinely flip a mental coin to decide whether a word ends in "-ise" or "-ize". I'm aware that one's an American spelling and the other is British, but the idea that one might be more correct than the other seems mainly silly.

I'm not really confident that I could consistently use either American or British spellings, though. There are probably a lot of cases where I don't actually know which is which.

But "gaol" still looks a bit weird. Where else is 'g' pronounced like 'j' before an 'a' or an 'o'? (There's gotta be another in this insane language, but I can't think of one. ;-)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[sk8king]

Anonymous coward speaking of cowards. How ironic....or perhaps fitting.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[MightyMartian]

> Big government socialist types, like Adolph
> Hitler, use persecution and targeted humour to
> manage the masses. Most Canadians are too stupid
> to realize this. CBC for example, oh they
> criticise government only to a point to get some
> perception they are worth the billions of
> government dollars but the reporting is biased.

Wow, compare a socialist government to Nazis, always a good way to indicate that you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

The CBC raked the Liberals over the coals just as much as anyone else. Hell, Rex Murphy's in hot water because he sided with religious concerns over gay marriage.

CBC's heads and shoulders above Global.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[MightyMartian]

You do realize that our population is several thousand times greater than that of Greenland.

Oh, and when you think about fondling a nuclear weapon, remember that some of that weapons grade material started out in Canadian mines.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[wtmcgee]

Looks like Grey Ninja just got 0wn3d!

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[FungiFromYuggoth]

Ah - so the first American president to win the election, both in electoral votes AND popular votes in oh, however many years, is a fuckup?

You may want to sit down for this - the number of votes a politician gets doesn't alter whether or not his policies are successful. Opinions don't magically alter reality.

Even in 2000, it was clear Bush had the reverse Midas touch - everything he'd been involved with had turned to crap. His only success in 'business' involved getting the state of Texas to confiscate land and hand it over to a baseball team.

But you can say that John Kerry (or any of the other candidates) wasn't one?

Actually, they didn't say that. It's pretty clear Kerry did fuck up, in that he lost to arguably the worst US president ever.

If the US is so concerned about the capability to do evil things, when is this administration invading Russia? Or if the issue is actual harm done, what is this administration doing for the 4 million dead and 3 million displaced in the Congo?

The only lists that Saddam was #1 on were:
1: Weak states on top of vast oil reserves
2: Mistakes W felt his daddy made

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Secret Agent 99]

Frightened to say so? No, the Castro regime has always publicly wanted to see the base closed. As a symbolic gesture, they have always refused to cash the rent checks the U.S. still sends. Supposedly Fidel keeps them neatly stacked in a desk drawer.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Jagasian]

Repest us less? What the hell? Wait a second, do you consider all Muslims to be terrorists too?

The majority of the USA did not vote for Bush in 2000, and the majority of the country did not vote for Bush in 2004. Do the math and divide total Bush votes in 2004 by total US population. You are supposed to be smarter than us, right? So drop your attitude now that you know that most people did not vote for him. Yes roughly half of the people that voted, voted for him, but then roughly half of the people that voted, voted against him.

You made a mighty big generalization of hundreds of millions of people based on a minority's voting tendencies? Thanks for the generalization Einstein! It isn't very easy to be someone that is against the administration in the USA, when you have people like you outside the USA that throws us all in the same bag.

So consider yourself to be part of the problem, up there with those who label all Muslims as terrorists. You sound like you actually believed to Bush's "either with us or against us" speech and decided to be against hundreds of millions of people. Do you also believe Osama's speeches too?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

No, we make fun of them as a means of highlighting your ignorance in hopes you will do something about it

No, you make fun of us as a means to feel better about yourselves. It's a classic inferiority complex, and very transparent.

That most Americans don't know jack about the rest of the world is news.

Actually, no, it's institutionalized propaganda. First, the link you provide is to a story about how a large number of Americans now think "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks". It is not about this unmeasurable "knowledge of the rest of the world" about which you speak. It is one instance of propaganda in our own society. You know, much like the way you are all brainwashed to believe that Maher Arar was abducted by FBI officials, and not handed over to us by the Canadian government - complete with false background information. Much like your PM forcing your government to vote for same-sex marriage, even though a substantial amount of the government and population are against the initiative.

The "ignorant American" flag just doesn't fly. For every ignorant person in our society there is at least one in your society; for every fat person in ours, at least one in yours. We have the good grace to not mock you. What does that say about you?

But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people

Aw, shucks, that's just right nice of you! I'd love to hear your opinion on black people. The "good ones" are ok too, right?

We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election

Odd that someone with as much "worldly knowledge" as you claim to have wouldn't know that Bush won by a slim margin. And, hey, how did Chretien work out for you? Paul Martin fixed your broken health care system and military yet?

We are, however, often offended by American politicians and media

You have seen nothing offensive until you have seen the way Americans are portrayed by your media. So don't even start.

Their deception, bias, illogical reasoning, and clear pandering towards good sound bites and entertainment over truth is quite obvious and offensive

So you mean, they're politicians? Wow.

But when you don't have real politicians and media who actually research and analyze things first, there's nothing to compare to and realize how stupid it looks.

Classic, and would probably seem like a logical conclusion to someone who had never lived in Canada. But perhaps you could regale us all with the tale of how the last mayor of Toronto was elected based upon a trumped-up media story that actually didn't affect the city one iota (the proposed island airport bridge)? How about that sponsorship scandal? That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Clean up your own backyard, 'nuck. Then lecture us "aboot" government and society.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[MightyMartian]

> I agree with that statement--for the present.
> Unfortunately, we need to look at the future too.
> I'm sure that Hitler didn't seem to pose much of
> threat in 1932, with Germany's economy in
> shambles.

When the Islamists overthrow a nation with the resources capable of making a substantial war machine, wake me up. Even most of the Middle Eastern states aren't, other than oil, all that rich in natural resources and have to import important manufacturing products like steel.

The Islamists, despite some impressive uber-guerilla stunts like 9-11, are really not capable of any more than potshots. Germany, even economically in the dumps, had natural resources, a highly experienced group of military commanders (even if the actual armies didn't exist between 1919 and the early 1930s). Germany had vast numbers of engineers, technicians and scientists at its disposal.

The two situations are not at all comparable. You might be able, to some point, to draw some parallels between Hussein's Iraq and Nazi Germany (though Hussein was more a Stalinist wannabe), but the Islamists, for all their recent successes, are simply terrorists. They can do a lot of damage, I suppose, but pose no real threat to American sovereignty, and don't seem to be in a position to achieve that sort of a threat at any point in the forseeable future. They are not the equivalents of 1930s Germany or Japan.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[MightyMartian]

Yes, let's go ask Chile about American actions to make their country a better place.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Vince Mo'aluka]

Most of the expansions of government awarded by the patriot act were in the works long before 9/11. The patriot act simply provided an open door for those who desired these expansions of government. They saw the door, and quickly slid the bill through before the people could blink. Viola -- government now has more revenue, more power over the people, and more "responsibility" than ever.

Mark my words, the patriot act will NEVER be repealed or expired. Refer to the history of the income tax if you don't believe me.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

Yeah, but
(1) Alaska is remote, and completely disconnected from the rest of the US, and
(2) The other side of the straight, in the USSR, is even MORE remote and hard to get to from the main population of Russia than Alaska is from the main population of the US.
So it's not like those "near" borders ever meant anything useful or signifigant.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[sparks]

Margarine.

(This is the only fact I remember from Mr McRory's Higher Chemistry class at Greenock Academy)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Jimmy9Toes]

did you know that USA has the highest ratio of people under the poverty level of ALL the "modern" countries?A blasting 15% of the population.

Yeah, but we have a lot of RICH people.

I have an idea. Let's take all the money away from them and distribute it evenly to all the poor people.

Oh wait! That's been tried before. Never mind...

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

There is a buffer of "international waters" at the north pole.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

Ganga (okay, so maybe that's not really English)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[patrick42]

I'm a Canadian, and I know how easy it is to fall into the trap of referring to our neighbours down south as "stupid Americans". But in actuality, Americans have a higher rate of education per capita than Canada, and there are plenty of them who are intelligent, cultured, and open-minded. Only, these people don't usually make the headlines because that doesn't sell. Canadians would for some reason rather hear about all of the right-winged Christian extremists who protest at the funerals of homosexuals and such. Canada has its fair share of ignorant, small-minded people too. Take the majority of the prairies or any suburb of any large city, for example. While Canadians and Americans do have different attitudes about some things (ie. privacy, rights, drugs, etc), I think for every difference, there are at least two similarities.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[freemacmini]

You didn't give a shit about saddam for the last 20 years. You don't give a shit about "bullshit like saddam" right now all over the world.

When is the US going to invade north korea, israel, russia, china, most of africa, cuba, nepal, east timor, pakistan, egypt etc?

It's not. Why? Well some of them might fight back, others have no oil.

BTW saddam didn't gas his own people. He gassed the kurds (which are not his own people) with the chemical weapons we gave him. We also supplied him with the intelligence needed to gas not only kurds but the iranians too. Stop being sanctimonious and accept your part of the responsiblity for horrific murder of tens of thousands of people.

Be a man and say "I as a citizen of the US indirectly helped Saddam hussein kill and torture people for decades because he was a useful tool for me, and to accomplish some objectives I felt were in my best interest". Follow that by saying "I as an American am the most important person on the planet, I am willing to kill, torture, and support killers and torturers to satisfy my needs and objectives. My interests lie above any other human beings or animals and plants for that matter."

Get that off your chest and then lets talk about your righteous indignation.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Ced_Ex]

Okay... I'm confused here. Are you not still using (the threat of) violence to impose your will? Using your country's resources to stop someone else from fighting a war is still interfering in the business of another nation.

First of all, the peace keepers not using the "threat of violence" to impose their will, rather, they act as a buffer zone to keep opposing faction apart.

More often than not, it's not so much fear of peace keeper's retaliation than it is respect that someone is willing to stop a war that makes this military unit useful.

I beleive using a country's resource to prevent wars is serving the greater good of humanity than it is for interfering in the business of another nation. Is it wrong to choose peace over war?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

At least the US had a civil war and solved their indifferences many years ago.

There is still a lot of leftover animosity about it. The way the war is covered in history classes in the north is very different from how it is covered in history classes in the south. Most of the facts are the same, but the slant on who's fault it was (i.e. which action was the first one that was "wrong") is the opposite.

And the whole local vs federal issue is still a thorny thing that keeps coming up. (And the two major parties have had total flip-flops on this issue through their histories.)

In the recent election, there was serious concern on the part of the Democrats that Kerry would be disliked in the south simply for being too much of a northerner.

That war did not completely solve these differences.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[udowish]

sounds to me like a certain yankee is a little jealous of what we have up here....haahha loosers

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

I (an American) learned to program first as a kid using the Simon's Basic cartridge for the C-64. The cartridge was from a British company. Therefore I got used to spelling "colour" with the 'u', because the cartridge said it was a syntax error to leave it out. In fact, I never even realized other people around be spelled it without the 'u' until much later. I just assumed every time I saw "color" that the person had made a minor spelling error, and I didn't bother mentioning it because it wasn't important. Thusly my misconception lasted a very long time.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Jimmy9Toes]

You may want to sit down for this - the number of votes a politician gets doesn't alter whether or not his policies are successful. Opinions don't magically alter reality.

I love my country, and I'm proud to be an American. But I have to agree with you. I voted Republican for economic reasons only. I think Dubya is a hairless freeking ape. Although I'm glad the democrats didn't win, I still think it's a shame that the only reason Dubya won is because all the biggots and homo-phobes wandered out and stumbled into a votin' booth because their pastor told 'em to do so.

If the US is so concerned about the capability to do evil things, when is this administration invading Russia? Or if the issue is actual harm done, what is this administration doing for the 4 million dead and 3 million displaced in the Congo?

The only lists that Saddam was #1 on were: 1: Weak states on top of vast oil reserves 2: Mistakes W felt his daddy made

I have to agree with you there too. We have no right to declare ourselves to be world police. We have to straiten up our own house before we decide to go and re-arrange everybody elses.

Believe me, we're not all ignorant rubes over here. It's just a shame that we live in a society full of sound-byte driven blind sheep who are so eager to avoid responsibility that they quickly swallow whatever horse shit that is spoon fed to them without even asking "What's in the bowl".

-Jim

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

No, you make fun of us as a means to feel better about yourselves. It's a classic inferiority complex, and very transparent.

I don't like the attitude expressed by some Canadians toward us either, but that's no justification for using this unfair, totally bullshit line of "reasoning". The notion that "if you ridicule, it's because you have an inferority complex" should just fucking die already. It's unfair because it puts people in a situation where they cannot justly point out when someone is doing something wrong. It's just like that stupid notion that "if you deny it veheminenlty, then it must be true." Sheer, utterly lying bullshit.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Ced_Ex]

Because this would be very difficult to measure. The thing is, people like you don't consider deaths due to the UN embargoes, totalitarian regimes, or anything like that, as being countable. Only deaths as the result of US military action. Kind of shows your whole agenda.

There may be death as an indirect result UN Embargoes, but unlike US military action, there wasn't an intent to do so. US Military actually went in and bombed the crap out of them. Don't tell me "collateral damage" is indirect. It's a BOMB for Christ's sake, it's meant to blow up things.

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Free the people of Iraq from the start? The initial reason for war in Iraq was for terrorists and WMDs. Have you forgotten that already? What about the debacle regarding false reports of the CIA? Forget that too? News reports when the Iraqi war started all concentrated on looking for WMDs that Saddam had as well as the terrorists he was harbouring. Funny how you fail to mention that. This freedom for Iraqi people came to be only after your Gov realized it was grasping at straws to find a reason to be over there.

Oh, don't forget that the Mujahideen were also freedom fighters that you abandoned in Afganistan. Funny how they are known as terrorists now.

Where, exactly, have you prevented wars? The Sudan? Mogadishu? Bosnia? Your model of doing nothing is certainly no more effective than our model of doing something. And it has been repeatedly shown that peacekeeping forces actually do more harm than good.

Cyprus, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, just to name a few, granted we didn't stop an entire war, but stopping battles where we can does help. Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation. I would say it is more effective since we aren't actively shooting and bombing the country that we are trying to help. Please, show us where peacekeeping is more harmful than good? Never realized trying to stop a war was worse than participating in one.

Another humorous point - yes you were there, but don't you find it interesting that our presence turned the tide? We were the deciding factor in that war.

Oh yes, all hail the mighty Americans who came in half way through the war. Any country can be the deciding factor when they join the war when it's almost done. Hell, I can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match after he's fought 24 consecutive rounds against Lewis and Klitchko.

Good idea, let's build a home in insurgent controlled territory. See how long that will last. Frickin' hippie.

No, according to you, your solution would be to drop bombs on them and kill them all. Great solution there. I'm sure this is the exact reason why the world thinks so highly of US Foreign policy.

I love to hear Canadians talk about how you would make the world better.

Well, I think the world is a better place without wars. If you don't think so, why don't you live in a war torn region and tell me how great it is. We're not contributing to a war torn society, unlike your government. My country is not imposing it's lifestyle on you or anyone else, but your country is actively going to other countries and doing that very thing.

Forcing a lifestyle on others isn't the magic answer either.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Em Adespoton]

There is a thing called "subtle humour" which you appear to have missed. Think about the point of "Talking to Americans" and then think about the title of the clip. The word American is used in the same vein as what the "interviews" illustrate -- that many Americans only have a clue about their own small part of North America.

By the way, one of the shows asked some Canadians those questions at a later date to see what the response would be -- turns out we have rednecks and the ignorati up here too. Many can't even name all three Canadian Territories, let alone find them on a map of the world.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Em Adespoton]

Doesn't everyone who isn't USian?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[cayenne8]

"At least the US had a civil war and solved their indifferences many years ago....There is still a lot of leftover animosity about it. The way the war is covered in history classes in the north is very different from how it is covered in history classes in the south."

Well, down here (New Orleans)...we prefer to refer to it at "the war of northern agression".

:-)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Phiu-x]

Or Jesusland?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[cayenne8]

Damn...need to hit preview first...that would be aggression....

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

I agree 100% with your assesment of GW Bush's motivations. And that's why, despite being generally in favor of us being in Afghanistan and Iraq, I could not in good conscience vote for Bush. For me, the fact that his motivations are rooted in #1 make him an unacceptable candidate. According to people like him and his dad, belief in god is necessary in order to be a good person, and a good citizen. As an atheist, it would be dangerous for me to vote for such a person who might start whittling away at my rights. If I did it, I'd be doing it under the hope that congress would be a buffer that stops laws based on this part of his belief from getting through, and that he therefore wouldn't attempt them.

(I do have disagreements over Iraq, but they are based on the fact that Bush doesn't seem to understand that occupying a country takes a gigantic number of people equipped with a small amount of firepower each (i.e footsoldiers), as opposed to a small number of people equipped with a huge amount of firepower each (tanks and planes). He's going about it all wrong. Merely defeating a country on the battlefield is the easy part. After that, soldiers become like the police, and the job of the police is very different than the job of a soldier. If they continue to treat the situation like soldiers on a battlefield, they will piss off more and more of the people they are policing, and never be able to stop the violence. My complaint over Iraq is based on this particular strategic mistake, NOT on the idea that we shouldn't be there. There are very good reasons to be doing what we are doing. It's just that they aren't the reasons Bush tried using to sell the idea to the American people and the rest of the world - those reasons were lies.)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Em Adespoton]

When the Islamists overthrow a nation with the resources capable of making a substantial war machine, wake me up. Even most of the Middle Eastern states aren't, other than oil, all that rich in natural resources and have to import important manufacturing products like steel.

Keep your eye on France and the UK then. The use of force in taking over a country is not always the appropriate method to use. Islam preaches a faith of peace and conversion, force only when necessary. What you'll notice is that the number of Muslims living in France and the UK is on a marked rise. Some of the major Muslim scholarship comes out of the UK now. I'm sure it won't be long before many of the influential people in those two nations are Muslim, and feel closer ties to Saudi Arabia than to the US.

However, this doesn't have much to do with religious political extremism -- anyone invading another country to "convert" it is most likely doing it for a personal or political reason, and is just using religion as a way to get support.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

Over 50% of you approve of Bush.

You don't know that. Firstly, a signifigant percentage didn't vote. Secondly, a lot of them didn't vote because they weren't eligible (below 18 years old) as opposed to because of apathy. Thirdly, and most importantly, the big alternative was Kerry, who was also an evil, greedy person lacking morals. People may have been picking the lesser of two evils (which does NOT mean approval), and a lot who would normally be okay with "anybody but bush" would have gone third-party becuase the particular "anybody" the Democrats put forward this time was a real nobdy. Out of all the people they could have picked, Kerry was the worst choice.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Jimmy9Toes]

I often think about "fondling" myself, but I started out in America, so I can't.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[bVork]

Pray tell, oh enlightened one, about trade barriers.

Very well, lets talk about Iraq, and the oil embargo, and how the US ignores barriers whenever it feels like it. Or how America (and other countries, America isn't alone in this) backs such barriers only when it benefits corporations, not consumers or laborers.

You forgot the softwood lumber tariffs, which both the WTO and NAFTA have ruled are illegal. And the US is considering raising the duty!

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Yeah, but we have a lot of RICH people.

Let me get this straight... so the objective of the society is to have 1% of population own more then the remaining 90% and have 15% of citizens under poverty level, 40% without medical coverage and the majority getting poorer and a tiny minority richer everyday astronomically? Am I missing something?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[theshowmecanuck]

Hitler said that his party was 'so left they will sit on the right'.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[subVorkian]

As a Canadian, I have to say that a lot of the Canadians *do* feel smug and righteous when talking about Americans. Need proof: Carolyn Parish. Believe me when I say, we Canadians hold some pretty un-Canadian views on Americans.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[ArghBlarg]

Funny, the U.S. seems to be quite willing to deal with other regimes such as the Chinese government, with their (still) abysmal human rights policies. And for all their huffing about North Korea, they seem quite content to let things slide as long as the nuclear threat isn't too bad (why is it OK for the US to have nuclear weapons, but it isn't for anyone else, by the way? They blow up just as badly no matter who launches them).. heaven help them if huge oil reserves were ever discovered there.

It's quite a widely-held opinion that the US wouldn't have done a thing to Iraq if they didn't have so much oil.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

I don't like the attitude expressed by some Canadians toward us either, but that's no justification for using this unfair, totally bullshit line of "reasoning". The notion that "if you ridicule, it's because you have an inferority complex" should just fucking die already.

We're not arguing what you think we're arguing. Valid criticism is always acceptable. Open mocking and ridicule is not. I am protesting the latter, not the former.

Canadians who make fun of Americans aren't doing so "for their own good". They're doing it just to have a laugh at a country they resent. And the very notion that a Canadian implicitly knows more about freedom, society, human rights, or any of that nonsense irks me. Canada has its own problems.

I'm not surprised to see Slashdot pushing this because pandering is a virtue curiously prevalent in those who are supposed to be highly-educated.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[mintrepublic]

Well the Nazis were socialist. Nationalsozialismus Partei, where they got Nazi from means National Socialism Party.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Brandybuck]

The objective of society has NOTHING to do with how much money someone has. Stop being an idiot.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[AndyL]

"The USA sent an AIRCRAFT CARRIER and airlifted all the useless freeloading U.N. and "Save the Children" reps who were basically just on tour, clicking their tongues and lamenting over the situation."
Well, that sounds useful. Glad to see the The government is putting our money where it does the most good.

"God knows how much private citizens contributed, as the media won't report it. I'm sure it's close to as much as the government sent. You see, we don't have a 60% tax rate here so we rely on individuals' free generosity rather than compulsion"
One of the major points of having a government is so that when an emergency arises, we can leap into action without first having to pass around a hat.
(Imagine a hospital burns down and they only send one firefighter until people send checks to pay for more firefighters.)

PS: There was plenty of time to pass around a hat to get 'donations' for the War in Iraq (it wasn't time critical), but instead they just took our tax money and put us more massively in debt than we've ever been before. (Yay for future-taxes!)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The objective of society has NOTHING to do with how much money someone has. Stop being an idiot.

What is the objective of the society then? If you are claiming that protection of the majority from exploitation by a minority is not included in it, what is included then? Only based on your enlightened reply, can we decide who is an idiot.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[cdrguru]

Saddam had one more thing going for him: we like to clean up our own messes when we leave them. You can say the Saddam mess started in 1979, or 1991 - it doesn't matter. It was our mess and we needed to clean it up.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

I often miss "humor" when it's not actually humorous. (The show was trying to be funny for its content and it succeeded at that, but you're now trying to claim it was also trying to funny for it's use of "American" in the title - I don't believe it.)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[cdrguru]

So when are you going to start killing Americans? That is the only right answer, isn't it? Because otherwise, left to our own devices, haven't we proven over and over again that we will cause death and destruction on a global scale?

Or, are you, like the rest of the world, too afraid of your own shadows to actually do something? Come on, let's get the united armies of Europe over here, invade and start cleaning the world of the scourge of "Americans". Come on, let see some action behind those words.

No? I thought not. Fine. Then STFU and move out of the way while we demonstrate to Saudi Arabia why they need to reform their government before we have to come and do it for them.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[flibuste]

Oh wait! That's been tried before. Never mind...

You mean in Soviet Russia? You must be an insensitive clod!

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Brandybuck]

How much money did *YOU* personally give? That's all that counts. Charity is not taxation. Charity is not the redistribution of over people's money. Charity is giving of yourself without worrying about what your politicians doing. But what about yours? How much of your own personal funds did you personally donate for the relief effort?

The US government nmight not have sent as much money as some other nations, but the money it sent was matched in part by the private donation of its citizens. The money it sent did not have strings attached, were not loans, and were not credits. It also sent material support in the form of ships, helicopters and soldiers.

But really, I don't care how much my government sent, because that's not the point. The really relevancy is how much I've sent, and what I've sent is nothing to be ashamed of. How much did you send?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Cap'n Steve]

Yes, Canada is so different than America. (/me rolls his eyes in a generally northern direction.)

No one country has a monopoly on stupid.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

Open mocking and ridicule is not. I am protesting the latter, not the former.

I know that, and I knew that before when I made my statement the first time. Your claim "We're not arguing what you think we're arguing" is false. I know exactly what you're arguing, and it's still utter bullshit to be making the claim that the Canadian's motivation for it is an inferiority complex.

What you have done is set up a situation where the only two possibilities are: 1 - A person's ridicule is valid, or 2 - it is caused by an inferiority complex. The notion that someone could be making an invalid argument, but still not be doing it out of a motivation of inferiority, would not be possible if your attitude was true.

What you have is "If I don't agree that your criticism is valid, then it must be the case that you have an inferiority complex." That attitude is unacceptable, and just as bad as what the Candian to which you are replying did.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[flibuste]

The objective of society has NOTHING to do with how much money someone has. Stop being an idiot.

Anthropology tells us that humans strive to achieve happiness through their life ("happiness" is VERY subjective and depends on the society you are in - in the G8 countries, it could relate to "amount of money" unfortunately).

Bunching up in societies is, according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the more efficient way for humans to achieve this goal.

Take those two assumptions: in our capitalist country, the way to reach happiness has a LOT to do with how wealthy you are. It's not ALL of it, but PART of it.

And in capitalist USA, money is the only way to achieve anything.

Stop being an idiot.

Hum....who? you?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[tengwar]

Pray tell, in what country does the U.S. have a military base where the local government seeks the base removed.

Um, Cuba?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[mre5565]

> As a Canadian, I just want to assure you that we do indeed refer to ourselves as being Canuckistani.

My father was very offended by called Canuckistani by whatever right wing American pundit coined the term. So much that he went into a tirade against
my American father-in-law, who'd never heard of
the term (and actually doesn't take much interest
in Canadian affairs, like 99.99999% of all Americans).

Most Canadians are hypocrites. We bitch when
Americans don't take notice, then bitch when
they do.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[mre5565]

> We aren't offened by them, though we perhaps respect them less since the last election.

And we (not me actually, since unlike
Iraqis and Americans, Canadian ex-pats can't
vote) voted for Chretien 3 times.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

What you have is "If I don't agree that your criticism is valid, then it must be the case that you have an inferiority complex." That attitude is unacceptable, and just as bad as what the Candian to which you are replying did.

Actually, no.

What you have is: "If your 'criticism' is actually thinly-veiled mockery, based upon ignorant assertions, progapanda-based mis-characterization, and mean-spiritedness; and it is only meant to be demeaning, then it probably comes from an inferiority complex".

Canadians do, in general, feel inferior to us as a country (in strength, world presence, and global positioning). They state this all the time - Trudeau called Canada the "mouse in bed with the elephant". As in most cases, they find the best outlet for this sense of inadequacy is to mock us. Pardon me if I don't feel like bending over and taking it.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Qzukk]

This is news to me.

Start of Panama Canal Transfer problems. End of the transfer problems when the US finally fulfills its treaty obligation 22 years late. And since this is "news" to highschool history failures like you, the end of the US military occupation of Panama that went along with that transfer.

The people of Okinawa have protested several times since the end of the war, the largest such protest after a 12 year old girl was raped. The Japanese government usually ignores it, mostly because of American threats of economic ruin in the event that the bases have to "suddenly go away".

I'm so sorry that I didn't spend the time to look up more cites for you to ignore last time, and I know you ignored them because you ignored my next cite:

IN-TER-NA-TION-AL community tried sanctions to affect change. I would think you would approve?

Hell yeah, I approved. Shame that both Clinton and Bush apparently didn't, since their administrations knew about the violations and did nothing about it. You'd know that if you had read the link I gave you. Or hell, if you had read your newspaper instead of using it to wipe your ass.

The Iraqi that voted did not come out of polling places raging against America or the election process. (For now we'll ignore the fact that two major political parties boycotted the election because of their belief that the US could not run a fair election)

Just wait until the US slaps them with the bill. How pissed off will they be then when America siphons off what little money they have over a $100billion bill? Until then, as one of the people who paid for this big experiment at the cost of $12(at least, since the initial 72% turnout estimate has already slipped to 60%... nobody really knows how many people showed up, and of those how many were turned away due to typical American election oopsies like lack of ballots)billion per vote, I have the right to be upset about how my money was spent.

for the first time is exercising his freedom

wrong, wrong, wrong. Scroll down to the bottom, and note how this weekend was the first election in 50 years. Thats right, folks, Iraq used to have elections! They used to be a democracy!

is an aspiration with real meaning to a people who have suffered from decades of dictatorship.

Who needs dictatorship when we can suffer from your ignorance (and that of others like you). Tell you what, save up a few pennies every day and go buy yourself a nice set of Encyclopedias. Get the ones with the big colorful pictures, they're easier to read.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Em Adespoton]

You're obviously not Canadian then :) We live every day under the dichotomy of both being American and Not-American. "Talking To Americans" was not a single skit -- it was a series of skits run for an entire season of "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" (which has a similarly subtly humourous title, aimed at mass media instead of nationalism).

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[cayenne8]

"Now, that link illustrates something that bothers me a lot. Notice how it's called "Talking to Americans", not "Talking to USA people" or "Talking to United States citizens" or anything like that. It says "Americans".

Well, from my experience...and yes, I've been out of the US...most people will consider the generic term American as equal to a citizen of the USA. It is kind of like how many commercial 'brands' have become generic terms for what they are. A bandage is a Band-Aid...a nasal tissue is a Kleenex....a copy machine is a Xerox machine....

Of course...this may just be an 'American' thing...

:-)

But, seriously, while may not technically true...most anytime someone in the world refers to someone as being an American, they are referring to USA citizens. Canadians are from Canada, Mexicans are from Mexico..etc.

Maybe it is because we have America in the name United States of America...so, American is just shorthand for that...

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[freemacmini]

" So when are you going to start killing Americans?"

Me? No our enemies have already started killing americans. 9/11 was the first step in a millenium war against americans by everybody who hates us (which is pretty much everybody).

"That is the only right answer, isn't it?"

No we could try being nice and helping people. We could try to recognize the sovereignty and dignity of dark people. Maybe we should try that before killing americans.

"Come on, let's get the united armies of Europe over here, invade and start cleaning the world of the scourge of "Americans". Come on, let see some action behind those words."

Nope we spend more on the military then all the rest of the world combined. It would be foolish for them to try and invade us militariliy.

Having said that here are a few suggestions for peoples of the world who want to harm americans.

1) Terrorism. You don't need an army just a handful of dedicated jihadists. Today with chemical weapons being so easy to manufacture and move they are ideal weapons. Biological weapons although harder to make would also be ideal weaponry to use against the US. Subways, big cities are ideal targets. You could also try to poison water supplies too.

2) Economic. Boycott all american products and brands. Until you destroy the economy of the United States it will continue to dominate and rape you whenever it wants to. A great way to do this would be to inject a few hundred heads of cattle with mad cow disease or some highly contagious livestock disease. This will collapse the economy of the west. You can also poison crops (especially wheat and corn) and destroy the economy of the midwest. Similarly you can attack crucial infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels. There are not that many bridges that span the mississipi and every one you knock out will cost a tens of millions in economic damage.

3) Attacks against US posts overseas. Specifically most listening posts can be attacked with mortars and other types of "dumb" weapons.

4) Attacks against american businesses overseas. These are even "softer". Once american companies are forced to invest millions in added security they will lose their economic advantage.

5) Attacks against americans overseas. Tourists, businesmen, govt officials etc. We kill civillians all the time so don't feel like they are not legitamate targets.

So there. It's war but without an army. A new kind of war where you get to kill and hurt americans without having to mount an army invade.

The parent of this post is right. Unless you are willing to wage war, WE WILL COME AND KILL YOU!. Sitting on your ass and thinking that you are not next is not an option.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DrSatan]

>The Islamists, despite some impressive uber-guerilla stunts like 9-11, are really not capable of any more than potshots.

You really need to get out and read more non-propoganda news, actually here is a good unbiased American webside that discusses this topic well.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fr on t/view/

>Germany had vast numbers of engineers, technicians and scientists at its disposal.

No real point, but since your comments don't seem to be too educated, those engineers and scientists were brought from Germany to the US and Russia after Hitler fell. A lot of US and Rusian technological advancements at that time were contributed by some of the same people that were indirectly involved in killing millions of Pols.

>but the Islamists, for all their recent successes, are simply terrorists.

Just remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter! The so called 'terrorist' movement the Bush Administration likes to label as, is a movement based on ideology. This ideology is very dangerous because it leads to millions of deaths. If you look back into history, the last similar extremist ideology movement were the Christan Crusades. Ask your self, how many people are going to die because of these extremist views ? Take note that Sept 11 was just a sign of events to come. The invasion of Iraq has only fueled Usama's, and Al Quaeda's, negative views to more muslims. This has only caused more and more people to question US policies on the middle east. Instead of the Bush Administration working to change Muslims biased views on the US, he has only helped validated it. There my furry friend, is the problem!

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[MobileC]

South Africa was heavily sanctioned for doing what the US is getting away with in relation to its military prisons/patriot act etc.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Ced_Ex]

So now it's intent that makes something wrong? By your reasoning, if none of us participated in WWII, the death of millions of Jews would be perfectly okay because we didn't intend to cause it. Even though we would have been complicit in our inaction. This type of thinking is why the UN is a useless body.

Yes, 'intent' is that thing that makes something wrong. Sort of like the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. The US never killed Jews, nor did they intend to, which makes that example rather moot. Just so you know, the genocide of Jews occurred after the war started when Hitler decided to take over Europe. And another thing, if you say the UN is a useless body, Jews were getting exterminated by the millions long before the US got involved. If it weren't for the Japanese, the US would have just sat back and watched. Otherwise, why else would WWII have started in 1941 according to your history, a full 2 years later than when it really did?

if one must intend to cause death for it to be wrong, then the US military is exonerated. Accidents cannot be intentional.

I hardly call dropping bombs an acccident.

Again, just showing your ignorance. One of the main planks of the pro-war stance was "freedom for the Iraqi people". WMDs were just the clincher

My ignorance? Surely you jest. Here's a timeline with all the associated White House Press releases. But in case you're to proud to read, the first several lines include statements from your leader's State of the Union Address, President Bush calls Iraq part of an "axis of evil," and vows that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." No where do I see "free the opressed".

Then explain what the huge fuss was about Weapon Inspectors? Sure, they were UN, but they didn't find anything, nor did your military after the invasion. The focus was to find these WMDs to justify your war. Now, spinsters worked their magic, and you all think it's for Iraqi freedom. What next? Iranian freedom? North Korean? Hell, North Korea even blatanly said they have nukes. No need for weapon inspectors, why not just march your collective freedom providing army over there? The likely reason why GWB hasn't done so is because North Korea would hand your asses back on a nuke missile plate, and because North Korea has fuck all in terms of oil. No business there. Check out all the contracts US companies have received from Iraq... Haliburton? Explain that one genius.

Don't get me started on Blair. He's just a damn "yes-man" kissing GWB's ass. It's no surprise the British don't like him. I'm just happy that they don't have the military might to cause more problems.

As for the first Gulf War, I didn't forget, I just didn't see the problem there. You had Iraq invade a foreign country, Kuwait needed help, US provided it. The coalition won, that's that. Don't need to annihilate a country to show them their defeated.

For peacekeeping in those said nations of Cyprus, Bosnia, etc. What do you propose? At least our solution does not involved using weapons to destroy. I never said it was a perfect science, but according to you, getting involved without using violence is not a solution. So go ahead big shot, tell us what you would do? Ignore it? Bomb them? What? You got a better plan?

Certainly trying to stop a war is much better than actively starting one with a sovereign nation.

You're stating this as an absolute? So we never should have declared war on Germany or Japan during WWII? Or perhaps you admit that this is a matter for situational ethics, and a much more complicated issue than your hippie beliefs will allow you to admit?

Of course it's an absolute. Why is war a good thing? People DIE. The reason why war was declared on Germany and Japan was because they were actively killing and invadin

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Easy2RememberNick]

Let me clarify the clarification. ...and I was going on about how we shared a border with Russia, and were the country furthest north."

You didn't noticed the "ed" at the end of "shared" did you?

Russia
Alaska was once owned by Russia, the US purchased it from them in 1867. (birth year of Canada btw) They are just across the Arctic Ocean.

France
We have a border with France too, the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon off Newfoundland belong to France.

Denmark
We border Greenland which is/was an autonomous region of Denmark. Sort of like Canada and the UK.

Spain
We almost bordered Spain, Washington State area was claimed by Spain. That was 50 years before Canada existed though.

USA
And of course the United States of America. A country south of Canada, which is part of the Americas.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Brandybuck]

Having seen a multitude of your earlier posts, it doesn't really matter how englightened mine will be, because you will still shit all over it if it doesn't match your preformed opinion of how the world should work. But I will do so nonetheless, for the edification of others.

First of all I must address the mathematics in your grandparent post. If 1% of the population is rich, and 90% is everyone else, what happened to the missing 9%? But no matter, economics is not a zero sum game. Just because the rich are getting richer does not mean that everyone else is getting poorer. In actual fact, nearly all segments of the population are getting richer. We have *WON* the war on poverty! Destitution no longer exists in the US. The poor today are considerably better off than they were in the 60s. If you want to see true poverty, you must LEAVE the U.S. and Canada and visit Mexico.

But on to your current post. Wealth does not automatically equate to exploitation. You are not exploited merely because someone else makes more money than you. But beyond that, "exploitation" is a word full of emotion but utterly devoid of meaning. I "exploit" my coworkers everyday by asking them to review my code. I exploit my grocer by taking advantage of his coupons. Heck, I exploit my fatcat employer by getting him to pay me for my skills! The point is, exploitation is done by everyone, even you.

What is the objective of society? We only need look at the history of civilization to find out. Why did we decide in ancient history to group ourselves together instead of living separate lives? There are two answers. The first was protection. It's easier to defend against bandits and marauders if you're part of a larger group. The second reason is more important: specialization.

In a society we no longer have to do everything ourselves. I can specialize in one thing and you in another, and we will both benefit. Trade is good. Trade promote progress.

The purpose of society has nothing to do with wealth. That's merely a side effect. The real purpose is to promote the free interaction of its members. Government is not society, government is a tool of society to protect society so that it can more easily facilitate the free interaction of its members.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Jimmy9Toes]

Yeah.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Jimmy9Toes]

I am an insensitive clod, and I make no appologies.

Communism is great if you don't mind being one of the cowed masses. But I'd rather live in a country where I'm free to excel, be successful, and go as far as my talents will take me.

You think I'm the only one? Just take a look at all the shiny new Russian faces that have migrated here since the fall of Communism.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[jericho4.0]

Brainwashed!? Hitler!? That's rich.

WMDs anyone? Yellow cake uranium? How about centrifuge tubes? Don't buy that? Here's another terror warning. How does it feel now?

Have fun in Iran, kids.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[jericho4.0]

Ok, fine. Jesusland can have Alberta and screw the lot of you.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[jericho4.0]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Go read a book. Maybe in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. The're demrocratic, and for the people and all that.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[jc42]

You're right, of course (except for mispeling "strait" ;-). This is presumably why most Americans gave the wrong answer to the question. Psychologically, The US and Russia are a long distance apart, even though legally they share a border.

Similarly, when you ask what's the most southern point in the US, people will try to figure out whether it's at the bottom of Texas or Florida. It's actually on the big island of Hawaii.

That's unless you include American "territories", of course, in which case the answer is in Samoa. ;-)

There are long lists of geographical trivia questions that almost everyone gets wrong.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Abcd1234]

Much like your PM forcing your government to vote for same-sex marriage, even though a substantial amount of the government and population are against the initiative.

I will address this one particular issue. Much like women's sufferage, and much like slavery, the fact is, the right (and only legal) thing to do is currently not the popular thing to do. Fortunately, unlike certain other democracies in the world, our government and judicial system realize that popular opinion can *never* be allowed to trump the rights afforded to citizens under our human rights act. And that, much to the chagrin of many a bigotted Canadian, includes discrimination based on sexuality. Your own President Lincoln understood this concept, which is why he freed the slaves, despite massive opposition. Unfortunately the very beliefs that ended slavery were forgotten by subsequent generations in the US.

The fact is, our government is doing the *ethical* thing here. So, citing it as an example is, really, just a demonstration of your clear lack of understanding regarding how a civilized country should operate, and also demonstrates how you've forsaken the lessons taught by your own forebearers.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[jc42]

You also see it spelled "ganja". It probably should qualify as an English word, but as both a foreign and slang term, it's not surprising that it wouldn't have a standard spelling.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[jericho4.0]

No, they had the word 'social' in the name. Big difference. The Nazis had no policies that could be called socialist, and from the start, the power base rested in Germanys industrial comlex.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[jericho4.0]

We gave you another chance. It's over.

Seriously, we used to say "like the people, hate the leader" now we say "Fuck them".

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[jericho4.0]

My apologies, but I also feel the same as the OP.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

Pardon me if I don't believe your lies.

It's just like the crap that comes from Microsoft shills who say the Linux fans dislike Windows simply because they are jealous. It's just as full of shit as you are, and for the same reason.

Yeah, I know I called you full of shit. No I'm not trolling. I'm being honest.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

It's quite alright. You've just revealed yourself incapable of discussing the subject without resorting to name-calling and hyperbole.

Are you sure you're not Canadian?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[lnav]

... Greenland which is/was an autonomous region of Denmark. Sort of like Canada and the UK.

Actually, Canada is not an autonomous region of the UK at all. Canada ceased being a part of the UK in 1867. Canada does happen to share the same monarch as the UK, but she does so as the "Queen of Canada." Canada is also a member nation of The Commonwealth , but this does not make us a region of the UK.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Qzukk]

I agree, the U.S. should have ceded control a long time ago. Are you happy?

Yes, I am happy. But you missed the point of that. You (assuming you're the same AC) said US occupation of Panama was "news", so I posted several links for you to peruse to show that its "old news". I'm glad you found credibility problems with one or two of my links, it means the time I spent looking for three was worthwhile.

And so what if Iraq had a democracy 50 years ago.

It makes your original statement about voting for the first time wrong, assuming you can find a 65 year old Iraqi. Thats all.

HOW YOU FEEL SUPERCEDES THE FEELING OF THOSE IRAQIS VOTING IN IRAQ.

Thanks for the caps, I had no idea that my feelings superceded the feelings of those in Iraq. I know that for the most part they're happy, and at this point in time all I can do is hope Bush's experiment works and that Iraq becomes a peaceful secular democracy.

You mention that the U.S. is going to slap Iraq with a bill.

Aww, you got me there. Bush promised it would come from Iraqi oil money. Then he "retracted" that promise. Of course, Bush has other ways of getting money out of Iraq.

Here's to hoping that History will prove me wrong and I am missing the signs, and we won't be doomed to repeat it.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Wandering Wombat]

And yet not a single one of you has the testicular fortitude to LOG IN and say that. Strange.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

I will address this one particular issue. Much like women's sufferage, and much like slavery, the fact is, the right (and only legal) thing to do is currently not the popular thing

You certainly set yourself up well: first linking yourself without evidence of connection to such hot topics as "women's sufferage" and "slavery", then by pronouncing that your position is the "right" and "legal" way. Your openness to debate on the issue is heartwarming.

Fortunately, unlike certain other democracies in the world, our government and judicial system realize that popular opinion can *never* be allowed to trump the rights afforded to citizens under our human rights act.

Precisely my point: marriage between any number of people of any gender is not a right. Find that spelled out in any document, I'll concede. This simply is not a rights issue, any more than not allowing humans to wed animals, trees, lampposts, or children.

Marriage is an established institution. Those who follow the guidelines, obtain the paperwork, and pay the fees have the right to call themselves married. Many societies see the institution as one between a single man and a single woman, both of legal age. Some allow multiple partners (we do not, yet nobody is crying over that). Some allow same-sex partners. There is no objective issue of "right" or "wrong". There is the definition of the concept, the currently accepted societal norm, those who want to change it, and those who wish it to remain the same. The problem with your type is you want to silence anyone who disagrees with you and force your opinion on us. That's not democracy.

And that, much to the chagrin of many a bigotted Canadian, includes discrimination based on sexuality.

Again, the issue is not one of discrimination. It is of a group of people wishing to change an accepted practice for their benefit (and, in many peoples' view, to the harm of everyone else).

Unfortunately the very beliefs that ended slavery were forgotten by subsequent generations in the US.

Keep playing that violin. Gay people are not slaves. They are not oppressed. They just want something that they don't have. Life is hard.

The fact is, our government is doing the *ethical* thing here

Whew, thank goodness! As long as the government will only speak for me when they're right, we're safe!

So, citing it as an example is, really, just a demonstration of your clear lack of understanding regarding how a civilized country should operate, and also demonstrates how you've forsaken the lessons taught by your own forebearers.

What it illustrates very clearly is how poorly you understand the democratic form of government. I'd be curious to see how you would react should your PM decide to enforce the banning of abortions. There are many who feel this is the "right" thing to do, and use the exact same melodramatic hyperbole as you to justify their position. I doubt you'd be crowing then.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

You mistake unwillingness with incapability. I could refraing from name-calling. But that would be lying on my part. You lie. I honestly point this out.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Abcd1234]

Well, clearly I'm not going to convince you... but, might I suggest you review you arguments, and replace "homosexual couples" with "mixed-race couples", and tell me again how this isn't discrimination.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[arwel]

Err, actually England (or more accurately the United Kingdom) does have a land border with France -- it's in the middle of the Channel Tunnel. As this is rather an awkward place to conduct border formalities, both countries have control of terminal areas at the other end of the tunnel, where their laws apply.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[issachar]

Of course it's descrimination. I assume that he meant it's not unreasonable discrimination. i.e. Not giving 10 year olds the vote is discrimination, but a perfectly reasonable thing to do as well.

But you didn't answer his question about how you'd react if the Prime Minister decided that banning all abortions was a matter of fundamental rights, (the right to life of an unborn child), then forced backbenchers to go along with the law silencing dissent in the house of commons.

I don't know about you, but I'd be ticked. (And I favour some restrictions on abortion). Letting the government force people who don't agree with you into line is a very dangerous habit to get into. Gay marriage may be a good or bad idea, (I think it's a bad one), but our government's attempt to evade the democratic process on this one is an embarassment.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Nazis had no policies that could be called socialist"

See my other post on this matter. You'll discover Adolf Hitler and Jack Layton only opposed each other on baking Jews and buidling military strength, and agree on practically all other matters.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Easy2RememberNick]

Doh!
Yeah you're right. I added that bit at the end without thinking what I was saying in the first part of the sentence. Although "sort of" is close.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Dyolf Knip]

I voted Republican for economic reasons only

Uhh, were you aware that Republicans for the past 30 years have displayed all the fiscal responsiblity of a drunken sailor?

And there are in fact other parties besides the big two. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. You don't get to vote for a chimp and then complain when he starts slinging feces at you.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

Well, clearly I'm not going to convince you...

And isn't it grand that now you won't have to convince me? You can just force me to think like you! God bless democracy.

but, might I suggest you review you arguments, and replace "homosexual couples" with "mixed-race couples", and tell me again how this isn't discrimination

I suggest you review your arguments and replace "homosexual couples" with "oversized beach towel", or "Wankel rotary engine", and see if it still makes sense.

One cannot replace the subject about which one is arguing with a non-anologous subject and then use the same arguments. Homosexual couples aren't the same as interracial couples. Not allowing an interracial couple to marry is unreasonable discrimination, and does violate a person's rights. Not allowing homosexuals to marry does nothing of the sort. The fact that your kind have to lie to convince people (and then force them to do what you want when the lies don't work) just reveals the weakness of your position.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

You mistake unwillingness with incapability.

Strange how childish this sounds. "I could do it if I wanted to!"

I could refraing from name-calling

Could you? You haven't. You've been throwing around terms like "liar" for quite a while.

But that would be lying on my part

It would be lying to discuss something in a civil manner? You've really got your panties in a bunch.

I honestly point this out.

Suuure you do. Hate to break the news, but just calling someone a liar, using ad hominem attacks, and just being childish is neither honest or laudable. Beauty, eh?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Jimmy9Toes]

You're wrong. To NOT vote would the worst evil of all. Do you think I'd waiste my voting privilege because I didn't like the choices? I'm going to weigh the possibilities and vote my conscience.

I won't go into the reasons why I voted Republican, just suffice it to say, I made my decision based on something other than sound bytes, and religious retoric.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[IgnoramusMaximus]

If 1% of the population is rich, and 90% is everyone else, what happened to the missing 9%?

My appologies, the actual wording is: the top 1% combined owns more that bottom 90% combined. The gap of 9% is in between those two. Sorry for the confusion.

Just because the rich are getting richer does not mean that everyone else is getting poorer. In actual fact, nearly all segments of the population are getting richer. We have *WON* the war on poverty! Destitution no longer exists in the US. The poor today are considerably better off than they were in the 60s. If you want to see true poverty, you must LEAVE the U.S. and Canada and visit Mexico.

I encourage you to visit here. A choice passage from the front page: "35.9 million people, 1 out of every 8 Americans is living in poverty. Thats 1.3 million more then a year ago and 3 million more then 2 years ago".

Care to try again?

Wealth does not automatically equate to exploitation.

While essentially true, a situation where 1% of the population basically owns everything but the shirts of 90% it is fitting the definition quite nicely.

I "exploit" my coworkers everyday by asking them to review my code. I exploit my grocer by taking advantage of his coupons. Heck, I exploit my fatcat employer by getting him to pay me for my skills! The point is, exploitation is done by everyone, even you.

No. The world "exploit" I used in the context of "To make use of selfishly or unethically", essentially "abuse for a profit". Better word to use would be "Enslave". I should have use it instead.

There are two answers. The first was protection. It's easier to defend against bandits and marauders if you're part of a larger group. The second reason is more important: specialization

No, the answer is "to cooperate for mutual gain". Protection, specialization and others are just sub-categories of this. Once one party abuses the deal and the cooperation is lopsided for "small group's gain at everybody else's expense" the deal is off.

The purpose of society has nothing to do with wealth. That's merely a side effect.

True but the wealth is the indicator of the performance and fairness of the cooperative deal of society.

The real purpose is to promote the free interaction of its members.

Nothing of the sort. The purpose is cooperation for mutual benefit of which "promoting free interaction" is but one element.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Abcd1234]

Homosexual couples aren't the same as interracial couples.

Why? Other than gender, what's the difference?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[bismark0610]

Funny how you speak of Paranoia. Funny how many of you think that privacy is a human right. Maybe its you that is so paranoid that someone might find out your dirty secrets. Who the hell cares??? If you are doing something illegal, I could care less about your damn privacy. I want you locked up. I could care less if the government listens to my phone calls, reads my mail and email, and sees what websites I look at. I don't care because I am not doing anything illegal. You are so damn paranoid that we are going to become the 4th Reich which will never happen. But go ahead, tell me how the Germans didn't know what was going on. Their rights were taken away bit by bit and they didn't realize it at all. And this is exactly what is happening to the USA. That's a bunch of BS.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Abcd1234]

But you didn't answer his question about how you'd react if the Prime Minister decided that banning all abortions was a matter of fundamental rights

Well, given that banning abortions eliminates the woman's right to control her body, I'd say the PM would be woefully mistaken, and the courts would likely agree. The point is, such an action would not be in keeping with the CHRA.

(the right to life of an unborn child)

Of course, there are the rights of the child to consider. Unfortunately, you have to decide how you define "life" first. Moreover, you must balance the rights of the mother against the rights of the child. Thus, the issue isn't so black and white. The current situation attempts to strike some semblance of a balance.

Interestingly, there's an important point here. On the issue of abortion, there's the problem of balancing the rights of individuals, due to potential harm. In the case of gay marriage, there is no harm. None! And, at least in my opinion, the rights of individuals should *never* be impinged upon unless it is to protect the rights of others. Thus, this issue is *significantly* different from the issue of abortion.

Letting the government force people who don't agree with you into line is a very dangerous habit to get into.

And having a government which only acts in the interests of the majority is also a very dangerous thing. Again, haven't you heard of "Tyranny of the Majority"? I mean, what's the point of a rights act if the government can tromp all over it based on the whims of the electorate?

but our government's attempt to evade the democratic process on this one is an embarassment.

And if the government did nothing, the judicial system would do it instead. It's already pretty clear that the court system has interpretted the CHRA and determined that the current definition is discriminatory. Thus, any attempt by the government to define marriage as between a man and a woman would be shot down pretty quickly, and rightly so. After all, if the government tried to define marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race, or between a man and a woman of the Christian faith, I'd be equally outraged. Wouldn't you?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Brandybuck]

You're throwing out a lot of statistics around without much backing them up. The only reference you have is to a Catholic charity site. While I do not in any way accuse them of bending the truth, I really would like to know how the define "poverty". That's because I do not see it in the US.

That's right, I don't see it. I see people poorer than me. I see people considerably poorer than me. But I don't see poverty. Let me explain. There is a difference between being poor and being in poverty. Poverty means destitution. It means you insufficient resources to cover the necessities.

But I don't see the destitute anymore like I did when I was a kid. The only people who are homeless are chemically dependent or mentally disabled, so are not homeless for economic reasons. The reason these destitution no longer exists is because the government is giving scads money to those on the bottom rungs in the form of welfare, food stamps, rent subsidies and similar. The poor in America today HAVE the resources to meet their necessities. That takes them out of "poverty".

That doesn't mean that there aren't poor people! It just means that the situation isn't as horribly desperate as it was forty years ago when we started the "War on Poverty".

Let's move on to the rich. Imagine ten people. Nine of them make $50,000 a year. One of them makes $450,000. That one person owns just as much as the other nine. That doesn't make those nine people poor. It doesn't place them into poverty. Now let's use YOUR numbers. I think they're fishy, but let's use them for the sake of argument. Imagine 99 people making $50k and one making $4,950k. That last guy is making a heck of a lot of money. But doesn't make the $50k everyone else has any less. In fact, that guy can't spend that kind of money without benefiting the other 99. It's basic economics.

You are entirely correct when you say "cooperation for mutual benefit". That's what I wanted to say before my brain froze and I muddled it all up. But here's a surprise for you: that's what free market economics is all about! Transactions can only occur through cooperation, and every transaction results in a benefit to both sides. This is Basic Economics 101.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[ShieldW0lf]

Big government socialist types, like Adolph Hitler, use persecution and targeted humour to manage the masses.

WTF you doing comparing Adolph Hitler and the Nazis with the Canadian government you idiot? That's both stupid and offensive on so many levels I'm left shaking my head in amazement.

And the Nazi party was a fascist party. If you're going to bring them up, at least get your facts straight. Damn.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[issachar]

Wow... Did you ever miss the point...
The point wasn't to argue abortion. The point was that open debate and democratic decision making is essential in order for law to be sound. The point is about people in power deciding that issues that are important are "rights" issues and beyond the scope of debate.

Of course I've heard of the all famous tyranny of the majority. It's a term meant to highlight the difference between representative democracy and mob rule. You seem to be using it as a grade school boogyman. In a functioning democracy, the majority always gets it's way in the long term. Representative democracy ensures that the temporary knee jerk reactions of the mob don't generally make their way in to the law, but the serious wishes of the majority do become law. If they don't, it's not a functioning democracy.

Think about it. If year after year the electorate wants something and chooses representatives to implement policy how exactly would you safeguard against something you don't think should ever be implemented? Constitution? How is it amended? Oh right, a democratic process? Judges? Elected ones? Appointed ones? Oh who appoints them? Oh right... elected representatives.

I have news for you. If the electorate wants to use your precious Human Rights Act as toilet paper they will. If they want to change it they will. The only way to prevent this is to implement a non-democratic system of government. But there's a funny thing about democracy. It's the worst system of government there is... Except for all the others.

You can't safeguard a nation by enacting pretty legislation. You safeguard a nation by ensuring a functioning and stable democracy with free & open debate, freedom of conscience & religion, free speech and an involved & conscientious citizenry.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[bulliver]

No shit. I've been Canadian my entire life and never heard of this. Of course if someone called me a "Canuckistan" I'd drop them on their ass.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[shreevatsa]

No, I'm Indian, and I can assure you that Ganga is pronounced with neither g sounding like a j -- gun-gaa.
But there do exist people who, when speaking in English, call it "The Ganges" with the second 'g' like a j, for no reason that I can fathom.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[shreevatsa]

No no, Ganga is always spelt Ganga, ganja is something entirely different: It's some sort of narcotic or something ("asian hemp"), something like heroin or cocaine, forgive me, I don't know much about these drugs.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[bulliver]

The "ignorant American" flag just doesn't fly. For every ignorant person in our society there is at least one in your society; for every fat person in ours, at least one in yours. We have the good grace to not mock you. What does that say about you?

You had a good point here until you mentioned "We have the good grace not to mock you". I've spent the last 30 minutes now reading through anonymous coward garbage about how all the great things the US has done for the world, sprinkled liberally with thinly veiled insults to Canadians. All these posts are buffered by comments by others trying to explain a different point of view than that of Americans. Go back and read some...you'll find they are almost painfully apologetic about trying not to offend anybody, making a clear distinction between your _government_ and your _citizens_...

But yes, most Americans are good, hardworking, nice people Aw, shucks, that's just right nice of you! I'd love to hear your opinion on black people. The "good ones" are ok too, right?

...but you still feel the need to twist words instead of realising that people are simply trying to use non-flamebait terms to try to provoke a rational discussion...a point obviously lost on you.

Paul Martin fixed your broken health care system and military yet?

I've never claimed our health care was the best in the world but I wouldn't call it broken. Certainly it's better than the "oh, your poor? You'll have to go die in the gutter then.." system you guys have going on. As for the military, you are making a mighty big assumption that Canadian people want a bigger, better military (so we can be just like our friends to the south and kick ass!!!). Rather, Canadians prefer to spend tax dollars on things with more tangable value like education, healthcare, or for that matter... anything other than military.

You have seen nothing offensive until you have seen the way Americans are portrayed by your media. So don't even start.

I don't even know what you're talking about here. Get a backbone. With all the canucklehead bullshit we put up with from american media you have _nothing_ to say on this point. Shut it...

Then lecture us "aboot" government and society.

I've lived in Canada 28 years and have _never_ heard anyone pronounce about like that...

No, you make fun of us as a means to feel better about yourselves. It's a classic inferiority complex, and very transparent.

...you were saying?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[bulliver]

Just to prove your point: go fuck yourself already....

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[IgnoramusMaximus]

That's right, I don't see it. I see people poorer than me. I see people considerably poorer than me. But I don't see poverty. Let me explain. There is a difference between being poor and being in poverty. Poverty means destitution. It means you insufficient resources to cover the necessities.

No. Poverty means ... poverty, destitution means destitution. For example, there are people who are "working poor". The definition of poverty used is "an extremely low level of income as compared to necesities of living". Your own Census Bureau calculates that threshold based on family status, age, dependants etc. (I think the current number is $9,393 for a single adult yearly income). Also the fact that you "dont see it" might have a lot to do with the fact that the poor people tend to live in particular areas and not be visible in well-off neighbourhoods. Also they might just be able to get clothing that hides them better, these are the days of $1 Chinese garnments.

That doesn't mean that there aren't poor people! It just means that the situation isn't as horribly desperate as it was forty years ago when we started the "War on Poverty".

I can only go by your official statistics, acording to them the poverty was in excess of 20% at the start of the "War on Poverty" (man can you be less war-like, it seems there is wars on "everything" going on over there) and is still around of 17% now, after dipping as low as 14% at one point.

Let's move on to the rich. Imagine ten people. Nine of them make $50,000 a year. One of them makes $450,000. That one person owns just as much as the other nine. That doesn't make those nine people poor. It doesn't place them into poverty. Now let's use YOUR numbers. I think they're fishy, but let's use them for the sake of argument. Imagine 99 people making $50k and one making $4,950k. That last guy is making a heck of a lot of money. But doesn't make the $50k everyone else has any less. In fact, that guy can't spend that kind of money without benefiting the other 99. It's basic economics.

I gave the reference to my numbers, they come from your official IRS and other publications. Your example is valid as long as the dude at the top shares burden of taxes proportonate to his fortune and the others are actually earning a proper living. There has to be also some sanity here. 20%/60% sounds sane. But at 1% - 90% ratio any semblance of a fair deal is gone. None of the other industrialized nations come even close. For example, the "middle class" constitutes only 53% of population as compared to say, Sweden, at 79% or Japan at over 90%. I think all these Wallmarts are managing to hide the state of affairs by supplying the kinds of everyday goods that people still can afford. But this cant last. The total wages of all people who earned less than $50,000 a year (about 85 percent of all Americans) increased an average of 2 percent a year from 1980 to 1989, which did not even keep pace with inflation. By contrast, the total wages of all millionaires shot up 243 percent a year. In other words, rich are getting richer and poor poorer. Additionally, back in 1945, people in the top income bracket paid a whopping 99% in income tax. In 1991 that was 31%. The Bush tax cut made it much lower. Your billionaires now have lower tax rate now then the bottom middle class!

Transactions can only occur through cooperation, and every transaction results in a benefit to both sides.

There are conditions on that. If the market is indeed free (an ideal state of affairs never hereto observed anywhere) that would be true for all transactions. But in the real world, other factors such as ownership and subsequent gauging of fees on unique and important national resources is possible. Mis-information and chickanery is possible. Ownership of conglomerate media and "lemming-like" behaviour of "free press" is possible. Competition in the courtroom is possible. Back-handed deals ala Haliburton are possible. Enron and WorldCom (and the whole

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[dave1791]

Interesting...

I voted for Kerry and you tell me to $%&/

The only response I can say is that the "Fuck ALL Them" attitude of many of my countrymen might just have a point.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Abcd1234]

Consequently it becomes ludicrous to try and justify bans on inter-racial couples because you first have to define race.

That's a silly argument. We define limitations on abortion, even though it's very difficult to define the stage at which a fetus is "alive". Similarly, we define the age of consent, even though the definition of "adult" is similarly difficult to pin down. The fact is, we as a society draw arbitrary lines all over the place.

No, the reality is we choose not to have a ban on inter-racial marriage because we, as a society, realize that's wrong.

The other difference is that race is a state of being, whereas sexuality is defined by your actions.

In your opinion. I believe ones sexuality is as innate a property of a person as their gender or race. Of course, on this we'll never agree, so... :)

Now I am aware that some people dvelop sexual desires for people of the same gender while others do not. But this doesn't change how we define gay or straight.

Huh?!? That's *exactly* how we define gay or straight. If you're a man attracted to men, you're gay. If you're a man attracted to men, but "choose a heterosexual lifestyle", you're a gay man in the closet. It doesn't change the fact that you're gay.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

Why? Other than gender, what's the difference

So, in other words:

"Other than a completely different distinguishing characteristic, what's the difference?"

Many of you are clearly deluded into believing that the argument is the same when you substitute the words "black people", "interracial couples", or other irrelevant subjects into arguments against same-sex religion. It is a transparent attempt to add weight to your position by shoehorning in completely irrelevant emotional subjects.

In order for there to be an analogy there has to be recognized common ground between the two subjects you are attempting to analogize. Marriage is accepted as a contract between one man and one woman (in our society). Differences of race do not clash with this definition. Differences of gender obviously do.

Your argument is just as flawed as saying "Why can't a man be on a woman's basketball team? Black women can!"

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[flibuste]

Funny how everyone takes everything badly on Slashdot... It *was* a *joke* but you obviously took it seriously and personnaly.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Abcd1234]

Differences of race do not clash with this definition

Unfortunately, there was a time when differences in race *did* clash with the definition of marriage *at the time*, which is why I used the analogy. Yet, today, we have a different definition, and we look back at those times and wonder how we could have been so racist. This will, I suspect, one day be the case for the issue of sexual orientation, as well.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

You had a good point here until you mentioned "We have the good grace not to mock you". I've spent the last 30 minutes now reading through anonymous coward garbage about how all the great things the US has done for the world, sprinkled liberally with thinly veiled insults to Canadians

Hardly.

And what I was, specifically, pointing up is the way your national media routinely mocks and ridicules Americans. You have shows which dedicate entire segments to mocking us ("This Hour Has 22 Minutes", anything else Rick Mercer does). Commercials become popular in Canada if they show Americans as stupid, or in some way humiliate us (the beaver attacking the American in the bar, the hockey puck breaking the American's face mask on the moon, on and on). MPs become popular if they insult Americans (Carolyn Parrish). Your news programs daily focus on anything that can embarass the US (how they thought we were being selfish for "only" giving $350 million to tsunami aid, etc). At the end of the year your news programs make a special summation of stupid lines people have said - sound bites - throughout the year. Oddly they only focus on American sound bites. The list continues.

You cannot possibly compare this with people making asses of themselves on the Internet - people do that regardless of where they're from and what they believe. But your cultural bias and contempt is visible in your daily entertainment, news, and all other forms of media.

After the dispute over the Iraq war there was a slight increase in anti-Canadian vitriol, but your anti-American rhetoric goes back years. And, as an American, living in America I never hear anyone talk about Canada. Occasionally some loudmouth gets on the television (usually Fox news) saying we should invade Canada or whatever, but generally we don't mention you. No need to.

but you still feel the need to twist words instead of realising that people are simply trying to use non-flamebait terms to try to provoke a rational discussion

No, I simply recognize equivocation when I see it. It's a lot like someone saying "I hate negroes ... except for you, Bob. You're one of the good ones."

I've never claimed our health care was the best in the world but I wouldn't call it broken

Funny. Your government, your media, and the majority of your health care professionals certainly seem to think it is. It takes 50% of all your taxation (in Ontario that's between 40-50% of your income plus 15% combined sales tax). Yet it is remarkably inefficient and losing money.

Certainly it's better than the "oh, your poor? You'll have to go die in the gutter then.." system you guys have going on.

Precisely what I'm talking about - you're simply ignorant of our system. Your ignorance is deemed excusable because it allows you to say something against the US, but if I were equally ignorant of your system I would be mocked.

Yes, ours is a "pay as you go" approach. But most employers now have their employees on some type of copay play which has our individual costs much lower than yours for health care. If you don't have a job and are penniless you aren't turned away - if you have a non-life-threatening condition there are free clinics, and if your condition is more serious you will be treated and billed but you can claim bankruptcy or other debt protection.

My point was that your system is not the perfect solution that you love to claim, nor is your backyard free from mess. Perhaps rather than focus your energy so much on mocking and ridiculing us you should fix your own problems. One problem both of us share is the ridiculous cost of health care supplies. Perhaps if we both focused on this issue we could fix a common problem.

Canadians prefer to spend tax dollars on things with more tangable value like education, healthcare

Probably because you have the luxury of relying upon our military to defend you. It would be amazing if you built your military to the

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

Unfortunately, there was a time when differences in race *did* clash with the definition of marriage *at the time*

Actually, no there wasn't. You are again asserting a false point.

Difference of race never clashed with the definition of marriage. It clashed with the practice of marriage, and this was found to be illegal and forcibly discontinued as a practice. This is because race is not inherently defined or constricted within the marriage contract - and never has been in the United States or Canada. Gender is. Just as number of partners is. Just as the age of partners is. By your reasoning, disallowing polygamy is just like racism. Disallowing marriage between non-consenting or non-legal-age partners is just like racism.

which is why I used the analogy

No, you used the analogy in the hope to blind us to your lack of basis with an emotional argument. A common strategy when you are arguing a flawed position.

This will, I suspect, one day be the case for the issue of sexual orientation, as well

Only if we allow debate of the issue to be founded upon such ignorant assertions as yours, which I will fight to my last breath.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

When you say things that only an idiot would believe to be true, then the only alternative to calling you a liar is to call you an idiot. I actually WAS being civil by assuming you weren't stupid enough to believe what you claimed. I now see that I made a mistake.

I could refraing from name-calling
Could you? You haven't.

That's another falsehood. I just haven't with YOU and you make the assumption then that I am this way all the time. When talking to people who, unlike you, aren't hateful assholes who spread bullshit about others in order to support a claim, I can be very civil. I doubt you'll ever see that side of me, though, since a spreader of bullshit like you doesn't deserve to be treated respectfully. You deserve nothing but scorn for attempting to damage people's reputations with falsehoods, and you will receive nothing but scorn from me for doing it.

I am standing up for the people you are slandering and you call it childish. Even though I don't agree with them, and agree with you more, on the "is the US in the wrong" stance, being someone who respects honesty, I can't condone your tactic of spreading bullshit about your oppononents' motivations. (Which you are doing again now, with me as the target instead of Canadians.)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

I was talking about the Jamacian term, not the Indian one.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

The slant in the northern schools (and I'm not saying I agree with it, in fact I don't) is that had the south not done a grab for the military forts in their borders, they might have been let go. The idea is that the "cause" of the war was not the succession, but that the north felt that most of the war materiel and real estate in the south that was being taken over was not theirs to take because it had been funded, maintained, and created as a federal effort, and so all that stuff belonged to the federal Union government as a whole.

I don't believe that, but then again I also don't believe the politically correct revisionism that slavery had nothing to do with it. Slavery was one of several topics that had something to do with it, and it was a lot more signifigant than people are giving it credit for. Reading his letters, it's clear that abolitionism was a major motivation of Lincoln in his whole life up to that point, and I have to believe that had a major influence on his decision to not just let the south go its own seperate way. He got so obsessed that he started doing some really nasty things to his own citizens up north during the war, in sort of a "ends justifies the means" mentality that doesn't fit if his only motivation was just "keep the union together" like he publicly said it was.

And, yeah, the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in areas controlled by the union, and only in areas that were taken over from the south (not the few northern states that had slaves), but given that he's the head of the executive branch, not the legislative branch, thats all he had the authority to pull off. He could do it in military occupied territory and therefore claim that it's a military order given in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, rather than a law that has to pass through congress first.

Did most people involved in the war think slavery was a relevant issue? No. Did the man at the top who is singlehandedly responsible for making the succession into a war think it was? Yes. Absolutely. He couldn't say it publicly, but his actions after becoming president, and his private letters penned before becoming president, support this claim.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

When you say things that only an idiot would believe to be true, then the only alternative to calling you a liar is to call you an idiot.

The problem is, the idiot is making the above claims. The control group is compromised.

I actually WAS being civil

One need only look at your own words to see this is not true - I quote:

Pardon me if I don't believe your lies.
It's just as full of shit as you are

Perhaps you simply consider this kind of behavior "civil". Most do not.

I, however, have been extremely civil. I simply posited an assertion - that Canadians insult us because they have a national inferiority complex. When you attacked this statement I patiently distinguished insult from criticism, and offered concrete proof for my theory (their own PM admitting as much).

You, on the other hand, have simply resorted to name-calling and other childish methods in an attempt to bully me into silence.

I am standing up for the people you are slandering and you call it childish

I particularly enjoy how anyone who gets his blood in a boil will quickly say that they are "standing up" for someone. You're not standing up for anyone, you're just posting to a bulletin board, and engaging in a rather petty argument with someone you don't even know. This is actually the biggest problem with the US-haters and people like yourself: you think just loudly disagreeing with action, rather than offering alternatives or concrete suggestions, places you on a moral high ground.

And, for your edification: "slander" refers to oral communication. This might be considered libel, were I actually making a statement about a particular person.

I can't condone your tactic of spreading bullshit about your oppononents' motivations

I'm not spreading bullshit. I'm simply making a valid, backed statement about the motivations of people who incessantly mock us. Mocking is not criticism, it is not constructive, and it certainly does not derive from moral or intellectual superiority.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Brandybuck]

The definition of poverty used is "an extremely low level of income as compared to necesities of living".

That's pretty much what I said. The key here is "extremely". If it's extremely difficult to provide yourself and your family with the necessities of food, clothing and shelter, then you are in poverty. But I don't see this happening today in the US or Canada. For food there are food stamps, for clothing there are those $1 Chinese garments you mention. For shelter there is section 8 and low income housing. Just because you don't personally earn the money, and it is handed to you instead, doesn't mean it's not a resource.

I think the current number is $9,393 for a single adult yearly income

That figure does not include non-income resources, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and other forms of welfare.

Also they might just be able to get clothing that hides them better, these are the days of $1 Chinese garnments... Wallmarts are managing to hide the state of affairs by supplying the kinds of everyday goods that people still can afford.

If goods are cheaper, doesn't that help the poor? Why is this a bad thing? Cheaper goods lowers the cost of living, so that the poor find it easier to meet their basic necessities. There's a reason why the poor shop at Walmart instead of trendy expensive mainstreet boutiques.

Your own Census Bureau calculates that threshold based on family status, age, dependants etc.

But without knowing that calculation the threshold they come up with is meaningless. It's just an arbitrary number pulled out of their ass. But even if it were true, it only covers income. As I've already noted, real poverty is based on the total resources available, and not just merely income.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Money for Nothin']

Wow, compare a socialist government to Nazis, always a good way to indicate that you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

Do you know what the term "Nazi" is short for?

Nazi = "National Socialist"

The Nazi government in Germany instituted largely a system of socialism for its economic system buddy.

Care to try again on the economic history? Or are you going to continue to claim to know what you're talking about in reference to Nazis and socialism?

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[IgnoramusMaximus]

If goods are cheaper, doesn't that help the poor? Why is this a bad thing? Cheaper goods lowers the cost of living, so that the poor find it easier to meet their basic necessities. There's a reason why the poor shop at Walmart instead of trendy expensive mainstreet boutiques

That is because this trend is unsustainable. By lowering the purchasing power so that only a discounted, no-frills, foreign-slave-labour suppliers can fill the need, one creates a vicious cycle of ever lowering purchasing power until the Wallmart will simply be unable to make their stuff any cheaper. You are simply hiding the poverty. Which brings me to:

For food there are food stamps, for clothing there are those $1 Chinese garments you mention. For shelter there is section 8 and low income housing. Just because you don't personally earn the money, and it is handed to you instead, doesn't mean it's not a resource.

That figure does not include non-income resources, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and other forms of welfare.

... all of which is precisely that, a method of hiding, in an unsustainable way, poverty. You can fund expanding poverty via taxes only for a short little while before going broke, as greater and greater number of people become poor (poor cant buy locally made goods, thus inducing "offshoring", thus inducing more poor, rinse, repeat). So unless you stabilise the numbers at very low levels and have incomes and size of middle class increase, or in emergency, institute massive taxes for the rich to bootstrap the poor somehow, you are heading for a crash.

Also, we were disucssing the social deal. If the insane gap between poor and rich is even further increasing, it simply invalidates the whole fundamental premise of the social order and, like always in the past, will in the end result in a catastrophic collapse. Note that the US trade deficits and budget deficits are at this point truly astronomical and unprecedented. A growing number of experts believe that an implosion akin to the "great depression" is within sight. There are some corrective measures that one could try but it appears that those at the helm are insane and are actually trying to steer towards the cliff. They are acting like a gambler who lost his shirt and is desperately, with his last penny, trying to "get back" what he lost.

But then, you can always try foreign conquest and a culture of fear combined with a persecution complex to divert attention from the economy to "foreign and domestic enemies". It worked for Adolf and Benito, who is to say it wont work here. For a little while at least...

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[freezin fat guy]

I would still like to count Canada as a US friend, even if half the politicians down here call it "Canuckistan"...

Then please do:) And I apologize for those times we come across as self-righteous.

It is unfortunate that American media often mistake an angry reaction on our part for hatred. Hey, no one can get under your skin more than someone you care about, right? When someone you don't care about does something dumb you just shrug your shoulders because that's what you expect of them.

But we have known Americans to be good people; people of heart, courage and compassion.

So our expectations of America are very high. And some current events have made us quite nervous.

Please bring back those good American neighbours we know and love ;)

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

Perhaps you simply consider this kind of behavior "civil". Most do not.

Civility includes honesty. When describing your behavoir, I cannot be simultaneously honest and non-insulting.

I'm not spreading bullshit. I'm simply making a valid, backed statement about the motivations of people who incessantly mock us.

If you believe that, then you are an idiot instead of a lair and are beyond help.

You want a concrete suggestion? Become smarter so you make less blatantly false statements. No, I have no idea how you can do that.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

Civility includes honesty. When describing your behavoir, I cannot be simultaneously honest and non-insulting.

Actually, civility does not necessarily include honesty. For example, when I see your mom I might think "I have just met the source of the demon spawn". To say that would be honest; not to say it would be civil.

If you believe that, then you are an idiot instead of a lair and are beyond help

Well, I am certainly not a "lair" - no evil henchmen or sharks with lasers on their heads.

However, all I can continue to point out is that I have offered proof for my assertions. You have not. Thus, it is very easy to tell who is making the "false statements".

As I said, Trudeau called Canada the "mouse in bed with the elephant." In addition, Global news recently ran a special about the "mood of Canada" in which it was repeatedly said that Canadians are starting to "come out of their funk" and are now feeling "proud to be Canadian". The reason given? Because the US is "no longer as respected in the world".

We are talking about a society which routinely measures itself against the US, that gets mopey and depressed and vindictive when the US does well and rejoices when the US suffers. That, my friend, is the definition of an inferiority complex.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[DunbarTheInept]

civility does not necessarily include honesty

No. Dishonesty is the MOST uncivil thing someone can do. Spreading Lies is more civilly damaging than spreading happy falsehoods. If you don't agree with that, then you're wrong. It's as simple as that. And, no it's not more civil to cover that truth up with some happy sugar-coating like "in my opinion, I think you might be mistaken". No, you're just wrong - as objectively wrong as believing 2+2=3.

I have offered proof for my assertions

Here in the real world where the rest of us live, no you haven't. You did provide some quotes, none of which back you up in the slightest.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[geminidomino]

You mean GP wasn't referring to America itself as "Dumfukistan?"

Damn, that totally fucked up my parsing. I was about to agree with him.

[-1, Troll if you want, then go look at dumbass "Joe Average American" and realize that he's the majority.]

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[robocrop]

No. Dishonesty is the MOST uncivil thing someone can do

Not in the slightest, and I think we've found the source of your flowing font of delusion: your pompous assumption that everything you believe is the absolute truth - even when your statements directly contradict one another ...

Here in the real world where the rest of us live, no you haven't. You did provide some quotes

... like these two statements.

none of which back you up in the slightest.

Unfortunately, since the quotes do quite obviously back my position fully, in that they speak affirmatively of the issue which I have raised, you'll have to do better than covering your ears and screaming "nononononono!" to prove your position.

Since you seem determined to drag this out by continuously replying that you are doing the proper thing by saying I'm wrong, yet offer no proof to back your position, perhaps a remedial lesson in logical argument would be beneficial for you.

Logical arguments start with propositions. A proposition is a statement which is either true or false, for example:

"Ankara is the capital of Turkey."
"Humans are the only animals to use language."
"Christopher Columbus was the first European to sail to the New World."

When we use propositions, we are either asserting the truth of the statement or denying the truth of the statement. Note that this is a technical meaning of "deny," not the everyday meaning. To deny in this context means to gather evidence to show that the proposition can not be true, not just to say that it is wrong.

Cogito, ergo sum.

Re:Allow me to clarfiy

[Wandering Wombat]

No, it's just a username. My email address is there, the link to my homepage is there, my real name is there. I have accountability. You had eleven days to think of a wittier response.

Google should move to Canada

[Everyman]

If Google was headquartered in Canada and kept all their user cookie data, search-term data, and Gmail servers inside of Canada, the world would be a better place because ordinary people would have more privacy rights.

Re:Google should move to Canada

[alexwcovington]

I'm more concerned with what Google itself wants to do with all that information on me at this point. Though it certainly doesn't help to think what would happen if it got into even more hands!

Re:Google should move to Canada

[gl4ss]

or they could just not keep it.

you know.. they used to have a motto..

Re:Google should move to Canada

[Grey Ninja]

Actually, I've worked for the IT department of HR in a Canadian corporation... so I am a little familiar with such things. The general policy is that it becomes a HUGE pain to the company to keep personal records of any kind (as access must be seriously restricted), and it's illegal to keep personal information that you don't have a business need to have.

So I think it most likely that Google wouldn't want to keep cookie and search term data... at least not with any sort of identifiable information attached to it.

Re:Google should move to Canada

[mkro]

The chain of who-knows-who of gmail invites is a keeper, though. Even though many get them from online forums, it is the Best Thing Ever to see connections between people.

Re:Google should move to Canada

[mtrupe]

But Google can't afford to be headquartered in Canada, with their outrageous taxes. Your idea of Canada being some social utopia is way off base, kid.

Re:Google should move to Canada

[mtrupe]

Google couldn't afford to be headquarted there with the outrageously high taxes.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

Re:Google should move to Canada

[DenDave]

They would sell windows eh?

Next up for Canada...

[mikeb39]

Telling Bush he can shove his missile defense system up his idea hole. We really would rather work towards a more peaceful world through understanding and compromise, not a peace built on fear and threats.

Re:Next up for Canada...

[Bueller_007]

Canada has bigger responsibilities to the world than that.

Canada's Warming Trade Relations
How Ottawa is trading away its commitment to Kyoto
Jim Harris

Canada's record on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since signing the Kyoto Protocol is abysmal. Not only has the Liberal government failed to meet its modest target of reducing emissions by 6 per cent below 1990 levels, it has added fuel to the fire by increasing emissions by 20 per cent. Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say GHG emissions must be reduced by 60 to 80 per cent in order to reverse the effects of climate change.

Rather than working to strengthen international cooperation on climate change, the federal government has encouraged the development and export of fossil fuels, which are responsible for the bulk of GHG emissions. A report released at the World Economic Forum last week ranked Canada 144 out of 146 countries based on its commitment to easing environmental pressures.

Canada's pitiful record on the environment is characterized by trade deals that facilitate the export of fossil fuels to some of the world's worst polluters. Through NAFTA, Canada has committed itself to sustaining oil and gas exports to the US (the country that emits the largest amount of GHG in the word). Ottawa is set to extend the same bad judgment by signing an energy deal with China--where energy inefficiencies are creating social and ecological havoc.

Despite serious back-pedaling last week by Industry minister David Emerson, the agreement being drafted by the Martin government will allow Chinese state-owned enterprises greater access to Canadian oil, gas and coal deposits. It will also grant Chinese producers similar legal provisions setup to safeguard publicly traded Canadian businesses.

With the right leadership, international trade would create lasting opportunities for Canadian well being by stimulating industries that generate employment and economic activity. However, Liberal trade policy is putting Canada in the precarious position of becoming even more dependent upon the extraction and export of natural resources at the expense of other industries.

Take automobile manufacturing for example: the North American market is changing and Canada has been slow to react in producing the next generation of fuel-efficient vehicles. The federal government has pledged to lead Canadians in the shift toward more energy-efficient vehicles by purchasing a fleet of hybrid cars--which reduce carbon emissions by 50 per cent and smog emissions by 90 per cent. However, it is unlikely this initiative will contribute to the success of domestic production without a new transportation and energy strategy. No wonder workers are concerned about the future of manufacturing jobs in Canada.

Meanwhile, Chinese car companies--with their rising production and export capacities--have expressed interest in fulfilling Canadian demand for hybrid vehicles. Even strategists in the Bush administration are seeking to invest billions to encourage hybrid vehicles and alternative fuels in the US. Canada may have to take similar measures in order to compete with US and Chinese production.

Such remedial action would not be necessary if the federal government took the lead on reducing emissions through fiscal reform. Green tax changes that shift public wealth creation from payrolls to resource management would stimulate energy efficiency, innovation and job creation while minimizing emissions.

Germany and Sweden have used fiscal tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lower pollution levels. Rather than hinder economic performance, these measures have increased energy efficiency and sparked job growth. The Economist reports that, "By embracing Kyoto, the EU might just have given its businesses an edge in the race towards clean energy", noting the financial payback of BP (British Petroleum) reaching its emission targets eight years ahead of schedule. Taking the lead on reducing emissions will al

Re:Next up for Canada...

[Eskimore_]

Telling Bush he can shove his missile defense system up his idea hole. We really would rather work towards a more peaceful world through understanding and compromise, not a peace built on fear and threats.

Understanding and compromise doesn't sell. So why would the most capitalistic country in the world want to do that?

Re:Next up for Canada...

[forgetmenot]

On the other hand. We know it won't work. The Russians and Chinese know it won't work. Hell... everyone BUT the Americans know it won't work. So what do we lose? Canada's involvement in a missile defence shield is relatively no-risk and cost-free in terms of commitment versus placating an ornery paranoid regime. Give em little token help like a pat on the back and some godforesaken swath of muskeg up North to build something that won't work - they get their "support" from us, we get a good laugh... "Oh sure, here ya go, bud" then dash around the corner and snicker with our Russian friends.

Re:Next up for Canada...

[mikeb39]

A policy of appeasement eh? ;) (lol, sorry, couldn't resist.)

I for one welcome...

[jarich]

I for one welcome our new Slashdot, politicized story spinning overlords!

Okay, so it's not new, but it seems to be more obvious recently...

Re:I for one welcome...

[jc42]

I for one welcome ... ... to be followed up by "All your database are belong to us".

Re:I for one welcome...

[thepoch]

It's probably to make up for that short moment during the start of 2005 when stuff they reported didn't matter...

We lost!

[SsShane]

When CNN is assuring Americans about making sure their "security" is covered, you be sure that we have lost the "War of Terror". Sorry Canadians. We'll bounce back eventually, I hope.

Re:We lost!

[leoc]

As a Canadian with many American friends, I wish you the greatest luck in overcoming your fundamentalist alter-ego.

Fortunately...

[animus9]

Fortunately George W. Still can't find Canada on the map (sssh! let's keep it that way), so any information acquired that violates our privacy will probably be useless to them. They might as well get a SETI client and mine through some of that data. I can see it right now:

"Your excellence, it appears that an evil race of aliens are planning to attack us -- also, they have a whole bunch of oil. Good thing we already have PATRIOT ACT VIII drafted up."

Re:Fortunately...

[Chuck Chunder]

Fortunately George W. Still can't find Canada on the map

I'm not sure that'll stop him bombing it.
He might mistake it for Iran.

You have no right to visit here

[Shivetya]

Other than what is granted by the host country. What is wrong with a country wanting to track foreign nationals inside their border? When does your personal rights exceed that of a country you do not even hold citizenship in?

In other words, does your selfishness override the rights of the country in question to do what it can to protect its citizens and police its borders?

As someone else mentioned, your not forced to come here.

Along your line of reasoning why should I have to declare anything to foreign customs agents when I arrive or leave their countries? Why should I have to tell German authorities I am in their country. Hell with that, why should I put up with "THEIR" idea of airport security, after all it annoys me.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[statistically dead]

The problem with the PATRIOT act is that the US is using it to force other countries to supply data on individuals that don't even travel to the US - The EU has been pressured into granting Paseenger Flight Data be given to the US for flights in EU airspace (that don't even go to the US). The US government is demanding biometric passports from other countries because US officials are too lazy or don't want to spend money on granting visas. The fact is that the US is forcing the effects of the PATRIOT act indiscriminately onto non-US citizens that don't even visit the US

Re:You have no right to visit here

[Fallus Shempus]

Then close the border, or do you want the tourist dollar? And yes my prsonal rights do (or should) exceed those of a 'country', not a citizen of that coutry, but the country itself. This is xenophobia, pure and simple, it's the assumption that a foreign national is a more of a threat than a citizen, go tell Timothy McVey.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[nbert]

Fair enough, a sovereign country can do almost anything within its borders. However, I believe that it's nevertheless valid to complain about unreasonable treatment of visitors.

For example back in the mid 90's I had to declare that I'm not planning any attacks on the White House when I visited the US (coming from Europe). There surely was no harm done to me, but seriously, how childish can it get?

Re:You have no right to visit here

[Fredge]

The EU has been pressured into granting Paseenger Flight Data be given to the US for flights in EU airspace (that don't even go to the US).

Is this documented somewhere?

Re:You have no right to visit here

[AndroidCat]

"Yes. Oh damn. Curse you clever dick Amerikaners!"

Besides, the Bi-Centennial isn't until 2014.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[can56]

As a citizen of a sovereign country (Canada),
I can do *everything* within it borders that
is allowed within its laws. Driving while
drunk is a big no-no everywhere, yet the definition of DUI varies (from BC to Nfld).

If I do not visit/trade/deal with anyone in the US, their government should not have any say
in my business (other than the recording guys ;-(

Disclaimer: I was working at a military base
in the US when the towers were hit. I'm glad
I had a Canadian passport with me.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[justins]

Fair enough, a sovereign country can do almost anything within its borders.

That's less true now than it has been in a long time.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[sapped]

This is xenophobia, pure and simple, it's the assumption that a foreign national is a more of a threat than a citizen, go tell Timothy McVey.

Thank you. Finally somebody else that agrees with me. I'm actually living in the US at the moment on a temp visa and as such I am issued a different drivers license compared to Americans. This is done because they just assume - despite the criminal check that was done on me prior to entering the country - that I am more likely to be a criminal than some random American.

Most of the time Americans don't even realise how insulting they are and often they don't even care if they do realise it.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[DunbarTheInept]

Are you sure that's the reason for your different type of license? That seems like a stretch. One reason could be that the normal kind of license is meant to last longer and you have something more temporary. One reason could be to signify that your license doesn't operate under the same laws because it is not a real US driver's license - maybe it is just a placeholder "link" in the computer that if they looked it up would end up pointing them to your license from your home country. You are assuming the motivation is what you say it is when there are many possible explanations.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[DunbarTheInept]

Technically, as far as the laws are concerned, the declaration of independance is meaningless. It was a justification for the rebellion, NOT a description of what the laws of the land would end up being twelve years later when the constitution was ready. (Here's one very vital difference: The Declaration says rights come from the Creator. That idea was dropped in the Constitution and it makes no such religious claim and in fact says a few things quite the opposite.)

Now, granted the Constitution ALSO has some things to say that make it quite clear that Guantanamo Bay is against the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law. (They get around the letter of the law by having the compund on a military base not on US soil.)

Re:You have no right to visit here

[AndyL]

"Technically, as far as the laws are concerned, the declaration of independence is meaningless." [Context deleted so I can rant about this one line.]

He didn't say it had any legal meaning. But it was the purpose our country is created.

We as Americans generally feel that the early Americans were justified in killing their (British) oppressors because their government did not stand up to the standards described in the declaration of independence.

Is it any wonder that we feel nervous when our own government starts moving away from those ideals?

Re:You have no right to visit here

[sapped]

Nope. I lived in California before and they simply linked the expiry of your driver's license to the expiry of your visa. This, combined with a flag in their database ensured you could not get a license without a valid visa. This system ensured that the immigration laws were being complied with and I was treated with decency.

Now, however, I am in Tennessee and they specifically issued these licenses which say on them in large red letters "NOT TO BE USED FOR ID PURPOSES". This, despite the fact that it still contains my picture and address. All this ensures is that I need to use my foreign passport for travel which means I get reamed every time I step through the airport. As I fly on a regular basis this pisses me off no end. My license still expires when my visa expires so no additional "security" has been built into the system.

However, with this "screw the foreigners because they are all terrorists anyway" policy in place the policitians can say "Wow! Look how hard we are on terrorism."

The interesting thing to note is that every government official that has encountered my "driving certificate" thinks that it is a stupid and demeaning idea. (Well with the exception of the TSA people, but most days I have to wonder if they are capable of ANY thought whatsoever.)

See this link for some background discussion.

The really stupid part about turning the DMV into the INS is that we end up with illegal people driving without any training or insurance. The illegals don't simply evaporate because they can't get a license.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[DunbarTheInept]

large red letters "NOT TO BE USED FOR ID PURPOSES".

Well, if that's the case then I agree with you. All your first post said was that the license looked different in some way - which is perfectly reasonable since it is a different sort of license. I was thinking something like "has a different color background" or "says 'temp' on it" or something like that. In fact, I'd been thinking the only reason you had been issued one was that everyone expects it for the purposes of ID.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[DunbarTheInept]

He didn't say it had any legal meaning.

When he called it a founding document of the United States, he indirectly did. It is not a founding document of the United States - it's a founding document of the thirteen colonies fighting independantly. Until the Constitution, we really weren't a country. We were more of a confederated group of countries, akin to, say, the British Commonwealth.

This is a hotbutton issue for me, since fundamentalist nutcases like to use the "by our creator" line of the Declaration as a reason to claim that God is the foundation of everything in this country - a statement that is very disrespectful to the founding fathers who explicitly defined that they wanted a secular country in which, while religion may be important in people's private lives, it has no place in the government.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[statistically dead]

I can't find the source that said this explicitly (if I'm wrong about all flights being covered I'm sorry) however the US request for PNR relates to directly accessing airline databases for those airlines whose flights that go to the US. Because the US has direct access to airline databases rather than being *given* selected PNR by the airlines there are major concerns about what degree of access US agents will be able granted (intentionally or otherwise)

Information about the agreement for direct EU-US flights via Google
Unless I've been mislead it also applies if you are on a flight route that goes to the EU and then onto the US. So if you go from Dubai to Germany and the plane goes on to the US then I understand the airline is still required to submit your PNR.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[nbert]

It's not less true than let's say 500 years ago - it's just less likely that your country is free to do what it wants because it has agreed to join certain treaties and oranizations (like NATO or WTO or even the UN). But it was your countries' choice after all.

Re:You have no right to visit here

[nbert]

That's a great idea if you are living in Europe and want to visit the US. Has it come to your mind that Martha Stewart isn't broadcasted worldwide? Most European countries only had coverage about her because of the recent legal problems she encountered...

Meh, probably not

[alexwcovington]

I think a really good idea is Canada becoming a commonwealth of the U.S., like Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans are stuck in a lovely political loophole that's not quite statehood and not quite independence. The US Government can basically run roughshod over Puerto Rico with nothing but the occasional referendum to maybe change the situation. A better idea would be for Canada to look at joining the European Union (it's already a member of ESA) and making that kind of transnational governance take hold over more of the world than a teensie continent.

Re:Who cares?

[Mr. Flibble]

So you live the the greater Toronto area - and north of you is detroit.

Toronto - God help you...

(Born and raised in Montreal)

The terrorists did NOT come through Canada

[seifried]

That is a false media meme that has become truth simply because it has been repeated so often.

To quote:

This is not the first time that Canada has been falsely accused of harboring terrorists and allowing its space to be used as a launching pad for a potential attack on the United States. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, media reports flashed around the world stating that several (and in some reports, all) of the 19 hijackers entered the United States from the northern border. We now know that all of the terrorists entered the United States directly from overseas with US-issued documents. None of the terrorists came from Canada.

http://www.canadianembassy.org/ambassador/030116 -e n.asp?format=print

Re:The terrorists did NOT come through Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Algerians with the explosives? I suppose Allah just magic'd them at the boarder crossing where they were caught by a US customs official. Yeah, thanks for getting all your news from High Times.

Re:The terrorists did NOT come through Canada

[seifried]

If you want to start throwing stones regarding illegal immigrants/terrorists/etc my reply is simply: 3 to 4 million (no-one is quite sure) illegal Mexican immigrants live in the US. How many other illegal immigrants from foriegn countries are present is anyone's guess.

P.S. It was one guy, and he got caught at the border crossing, the system can work without draconian measures.

Re:The terrorists did NOT come through Canada

[spamfiltertest]

You mean there was never terrorists that tried to come from Canada to the US?

Re:The terrorists did NOT come through Canada

[kidlinux]

Well, the funny thing about the US accusing Canada of harbouring said terrorists is that the US are the ones that let them in to the US!

Re:The terrorists did NOT come through Canada

[katsiris]

Yeah, so some terrorists have doubtless come through from Canada (like the Algerians). Doubtless countless people have crossed from the US to Canada that shouldn't have as well. THE terrorists (i.e. 9/11) came direct into the US. That's what he said, but thanks for attempting to change the topic anyway. Keep watching Fox!

Solution to the Patriot ac t...

[gwn]

The solution is suggested in the article, have everything done in Canadian facilities with strict controls over the data. The next step would be to make it a contract condition that companies doing work with this data must not have any presence in the US, directly or indirectly, or any jurisdiction that supports the patriot act. This has the benefit to Canadian companies to be somewhat protectionist. In case some of you haven't noticed US trans-national corporations are buying up Canadian businesses at an alarming rate. US citizens are also investing in Canadian properties too. Seems they look at us as the safe place to invest their money. After all didn't most of them put Canadian flags on their coats and backpacks when they went travelling during College? Sorry I digressed a bit from the topic... Summary, Canadians really do like and wish the best for the American people, but sometimes we find it hard to like your Governments policies, both internal and external. Most of us find it hard to believe that you allowed so many of your hard won civil rights to be stripped away with so little discussion and thought, the Partiot Act. ... God bless and save us all...

Re:Solution to the Patriot ac t...

[geminidomino]

Summary, Canadians really do like and wish the best for the American people, but sometimes we find it hard to like your Governments policies, both internal and external.

No need to apologize for that. The more intelligent of us down here don't like 'em all that much either!

Re:Solution to the Patriot ac t...

[Shalda]

Nah, too much work. I look forward to the day when some IT pilot fish gets a request from the FBI under Patriot Act IV and must make a decision about whether to supply the data and face indictment in Canada or refuse and face indictment in the US.

Privacy Details

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone is interested, the Canadian Privacy Commissioner's website can be found here: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/index_e.asp The privacy laws here generally fall under PIPEDA - Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Passed just a few years ago, it has made it very easy for the individual to take the upper hand in privacy disputes with corporations as the act greatly favours the little guy.

Re:Privacy Details

[Fr05t]

The company I work for follows PIPEDA to the letter when dealing with customer and potential customer information and data. This is extended to American and European customers as a matter of respect. Most of PIPEDA is simple common sense respect for others privacy. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy :)

Border guards

[jimhill]

One time I zipped up into Canada on a day trip. Going in, the Canadian border guards wanted to know if I had any firearms or ammunition. Coming back, the US border guards wanted to know if I had any fruits or vegetables. That says a lot (hey, two words!) about our two countries.

Re:Border guards

[badfish99]

One time I zipped across the Iron Curtain at the height of the cold war. The border guards on either side didn't ask me any questions at all. But then, we do things differently here in Europe.

Re:Border guards

[AndroidCat]

Of course they didn't ask questions...

Sam Lowry: My name's Lowry. Sam Lowry. I've been told to report to Mr. Warrenn.
Porter: Thirtieth floor, sir. You're expected.
Sam Lowry: Um... don't you want to search me?
Porter: No sir.
Sam Lowry: Do you want to see my ID?
Porter: No need, sir.
Sam Lowry: But I could be anybody.
Porter: No you couldn't sir. This is Information Retrieval.

Re:Border guards

[DroopyStonx]

Actually, it's quite the opposite.

I live in Detroit and frequently head to the casino in Windsor. Candian guards simply ask what you're doing and let you pass while the US guards pretty much give you a strip search coming back through.. each and every time.

Canadians are much more lenient, so I'm not sure where the parent post is coming from... obviously not someone who frequents the border ;)

Re:Border guards

[jimhill]

My post was intended to illustrate the national priorities. Canada likes not having bullets fly about willy-nilly, while the US likes its citizenry eating home-grown fruit. I never meant to imply that Canada's border guards are more jacked in their boots than the US's...that'd be just laughable.

Re:Border guards

[vistic]

my favorite movie

Re:Border guards

[Prof.Phreak]

It depends on the situation and place. Near neagara falls, I needed a passport and a quarter to get into canada... on my way back, -nobody- even asked me anything. I just walked in: nobody even bothered to check who I was.

On another trip, a whole bus of people just drove into canada (no ids, nothing). On the way back, there was a guard going over the entire bus and checking everyone's id.

In short, it depends on the time/place/situation---and whether you look suspicious enough.

Sorry to say that's not the American way

[Anonymous Coward]

The facts of history indicate peace isn't something the USA has ever been interested in, a nation can change but i dont think it will be soon.

Don't Do Business With Them

[MoThugz]

Apparently the FBI currently has the right, through Patriot, to search documents which may contain Canadian information sent to US firms carrying out work under contract.

Then just don't do business with those firms.

Let your money do the talking... apparently politicians listen more to corporations than individuals (especially the average /. geek).

Re:Don't Do Business With Them

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Then just don't do business with those firms.

This is not always an option. Also the problem is oversimplified. Companies in the U.S. do business in Canada. They have the obey Canadian laws in these interactions. U.S. laws now force those companies to break Canadian laws and not tell Canada that they are breaking those laws to comply with U.S. law. The result is companies not only break the law in Canada, but have to break a U.S. law to confess. Similarly with Canadian companies who do business in the U.S.

Imagine if Canada passed a law that said they get to put experimental drugs in foods produced by Canadian farmers. The law also forbid them from revealing to anyone this fact. Now Canadian companies that ship to the U.S. are required to obey U.S. health codes. Now all these companies have to break the law in the U.S. and can't reveal it. Would the U.S. complain to the Canadian government about this Canadian law?

Re:Don't Do Business With Them

[Phrogman]

"Then just don't do business with those firms."

Its not that simple. One of those US Companies has been hired to manage all the medical records for the Province of British Columbia (where I live). That means that all my medical records and all of those belonging to any other citizen living in BC, are directly accessible to the FBI, in complete contravention of Canadian Privacy Laws. I have no choice but to deal with this US Company, since we have a great national health care system and I have no choice if I visit a doctor. They are all tied into that system along with all the pharmacies etc. The only weak link is the government of BC, the moronic majority in the province voted in the Liberal Party and since they are about as Liberal as the Republicans in the US, they privatized the record keeping for medical records, or are about to.

Re:Don't Do Business With Them

[temojen]

Unfortunately, the provincial governments don't all take that advice, and at least one has contracted out handling of medical and tax records to US companies.

Re:Don't Do Business With Them

[Laz7]

exactly !!! (saves me from just retyping out what you said)

Re:A really stupid overly idealist view you have.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as corporal punishment discouraged kids from acting out in school so does the threat and implemenation of destruction curtail the activities of the lunatic groups that seek to impose their views on others.

Just like the death penalty has eliminated murders from all those Texas cities... oh, wait, no it hasn't.

PS : You'll notice the Canadians were more than happy to send troops to Afghanistan, from where the terrorists actually were operating.

PPS : Threadjack!

RTFA, besides this was going on before Patriot Act

[will_die]

The main thing they are complaining about is that an American company could be ordered by a US court to supply info that they owned and was stored in Canada and that a US company that was storing infomation for a Canadian company could also be ordered by a court to provide infomation on a person.
This is no different then was going on before the patriot act, so no big change, it just looks better to the mass idiots if include the words US Patriot act in the headlines.

Re:A really stupid overly idealist view you have.

[geminidomino]

A peaceful world will only come about when those who prey on civilians because of religious, ethnic, or other differences are eradicated.

So basically, when the poorly named Homo Sapiens is extinct.

Everyone

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I think this applies to everyone and we should all be worried. With the US Mentality of "your with us or against us!" you HAVE to support them. even if you want them all to fuck off and die, you can't say it out loud and sleep soundly at night. after starting two wars (I'm from the UK, so yes we helped...) and having a guy with more self confidence then sense in charge I'd rather keep my anti-yank opinions away from him in the political forum.

Maybe someone should teach Bush that there isn't only "us" and "them". Because mentality like that slowly chips away at "us" untill everyone is "them" and you're in a padded room going "THE VOICES TELL ME THEY ARE GOING TO BOMB US! THEY WILL BOMB US AND WE MUST GET THEM FIRST! IF WE DONT WE'LL ALL DIE! QUICK NUKE THEM ALL!"

Weary eh?

[diogenes57]

We're all getting a little tired of hearing about that bit of legislation.

Re:Weary eh?

[ScentCone]

We're all getting a little tired of hearing about that bit of legislation.

Well, thanks for at least recognizing that it is legislation (not some edict from the White House or the Justice Department, which can't do such things), and though you don't imply it, that it was supported by both policital parties in a large majority.

It is legislation, and it can and will be altered over time. But it also covers some completely crazy previous loopholes in our ability to do some basic catch-the-bad-guy stuff, and at least starts treating airports like the actually risky places they are. It also recognizes that there are murderous people using communications technology that's less than 100 years old. You know, the kind of people that say things like "democracy is evil" and "we will behead anyone that votes." It takes some changes to deal with those changes. It also takes some reflection and perspective (and time, and continued congressional changes) to know if and when you've got the recipe right.

Tell me about it.

[nounderscores]

Here's the thing,
I didn't vote for you.
It was cool cause I didn't want to.
Yeah, yeah. Since u been gone.
Inaugurated, sat in the oval room.
Wasn't long before the dot-com boom.
Yeah, yeah. Since u been gone.
And all you'd ever hear me say
Is "Don't globalize our jobs!"
That's all you'd ever hear me say.

BUT SINCE U BEEN GONE....
We've got this insane cowboy.
I visit MoveOn-Dot-Com
After you - rednecks get - what they want
Since u been gone

How can I put it, I was afraid of you.
I even was afraid of Janet Reno.
Yeah, yeah. Since u been gone.
How come I never hear you say
"We'll have a smaller government"
I guess you never felt that way.

BUT SINCE U BEEN GONE....
Hi-Cap mags are back in our schools
Torture isn't wrong. Yeah, yeah.
After you - the whole world - hates our guts.
Since u been gone.

You had your chance, you blew it
Out of sight out of mind.
Shut your fly, I just can't take it
Again and again and again and again

SINCE U BEEN GONE.... (Since u been gone....)
Eternal war against terror.
Little Green Footballs is popular.
After you (After you)
Our dollar - took a plunge.
I'd vote for your wife if I could.
But not John Kerry, he's a douche bag.
After you (After you)
Now you know (you know)
You should know( you should know) Red China,
The Chinese own our ass.

Since u been gone
Since u been gone
Since u been gone

Big apologies to Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone"

Re:Tell me about it.

[operagost]

Wow -- look at your idiocy on display for the entire internet to see. "Hi-cap mags are back in our schools?" Are you serious? Columbine happened while Clinton and his "assault weapon ban" was in effect. They killed quite well with 10-round magazines. What's happened since then? Any full-auto school slaughters? Oh yeah, in Beslan, Russia -- by terrorists.

Shoot, I'm still afraid of Janet Reno.

Re:Tell me about it.

[PD]

Folks, if you've never read a poem, then you won't understand poetic license.

Re:Tell me about it.

[nounderscores]

Yeah, the original line I had was

"We smack down faggots for our family values"

but it didn't scan, and it didn't reflect the mentality of the kind of (non)voter that I'm parodying.

Re:Tell me about it.

[Scrameustache]

Columbine happened while Clinton and his "assault weapon ban" was in effect. They killed quite well with 10-round magazines. What's happened since then? Any full-auto school slaughters?

In the weeks after columbine, a Canadian tried to do copy-cat killing spree. But being Canadian, and apparently an idiot, he didn't have access to firearms, and he tried it with a knife. Result: 6 (IIRC) injured, including the idiot himself, no one killed. Why? Because it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, and if you come at guy with a knife in a school, you risk getting beaten down with a chair.

If the Columbine kids had access to better weapons, they would simply have suceeded in killig more people.

But since they banned every weapon, real AND imagined in schools, and they'll suspend you for simply looking like you're thinking about shooting someone, there hasn't been as many school kid massacres. Just like there haven't been that many "ramming jet planes full of fuel and people into crowded buildings" recently either. I guess attention-seeking assassins want to be original in their murders.

Oh yeah, in Beslan, Russia -- by terrorists.

The "cops" did most of the dammage there.
Nerve gas before that... Man, it sucks being an hostage in or around Russia: the terrorists are doing as much as the government to keep you alive!

Re:Tell me about it.

[cayenne8]

"Since u been gone"

Hmm...at first I was getting excited that someone remembered the classic old Head East song "Since You've Been Gone"...but, couldn't figure how to fit the parody words into that song...then, I saw this at the bottom:

"Big apologies to Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone"

I'm guessing she was on one of those 'talent' reality shows of late...so, not only was the content a bit towards the flamebait category....it wasn't even based on a real song by a real singer...

:-(

Re:Tell me about it.

[Spyde]

I don't know you managed to miss this story...

Re:Tell me about it.

[Thuktun]

Big apologies to Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone"

Whew, that's a relief. I couldn't figure out why your lyrics wouldn't scan properly to the Outfield's "Since You've Been Gone".

Re:Tell me about it.

[Thuktun]

Because it's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun, and if you come at guy with a knife in a school, you risk getting beaten down with a chair.

Or simply bare-handed disarmed and knocked senseless.

Traditional martial arts that many kids study work well on more traditional weapons like knives. Kung Fu, et al., don't do much against someone with a gun, IMHO.

Re:Tell me about it.

[rho]

In Pearl, Mississippi, young Luke Woodham was stopped from further mayhem by a gun-toting principal.

Columbine would have been quite a different story if there was a teacher there who was carrying concealed. In fact, if it was common knowledge that there were unknown numbers of teachers who could bring the Columbine shooters down with their weapons, Tweedle-dead and Tweedle-deader would even now be sullenly skipping bowling-league practice and listening to crap emo music.

Re:Tell me about it.

[Brandybuck]

But since they banned every weapon, real AND imagined in schools...

Funny thing, firearms were banned in every US school BEFORE Columbine happened. Even if they were fake imitations in dayglo plastic that squirted water. But that didn't stop the tragedy that happened.

Re:Tell me about it.

[NaruVonWilkins]

That's one line. How about the rest?

Re:Tell me about it.

[Ced_Ex]

Traditional martial arts that many kids study work well on more traditional weapons like knives. Kung Fu, et al., don't do much against someone with a gun, IMHO.

Obviously you have not transcended the level where you can block bullets.

Come to my class, and for 10 easy payments of $98.99, I can teach you to reach this zen.

Re:Tell me about it.

[sumdumass]

I don't think comparing a knife incedent to a guun incedent is exactly the case here. First the "columbine kids" made bombs and booby-traps that didn't use guns. If the kid with the knife had the injenuity to do the same he could have easily made a gun.

Guns/firearms aren't all hard to make. First anyone with a basic understanding of an internal combustion engine has the basics of igniting a substance and causing it to move and object. Remove the crank shaft and boom you have a projectile. Now make it small enough and convienient engounh to carry and you have a gun.

Based on this single idea, you can take a small map-gas and oxygen tank that is normaly used for welding, conect it to some pipe (usualy pvc but metal will work just as easy) knock holes in it for ball berings to drop down and seal it, then rig a BBQ grill spark ignitor to it. You know have a repeating firearm capable of shooting many times with lethal force within a short period of time and all you have to do is experiment with gas settings and reloading tubs (like the ones for paintballs) to get the most power and force output possible.

Of couse someone trying to recreate a columbine with just a knife wouldn't go thru this but someone making improvised explosive material and bombs as well as anti-personel mines and grenades would. Access to a firearm is trivial when the determination and perseverance is at hand. The kid with the knife was looking for attention were columbine kids were looking for results. Reguardless of the motive, the to instances are so different it is dificult to even compare them.

Of course there are simularities and it was a copycat in apearance. I think it is more of an attention getter with the knife though. The motive/intended outcome have more to do with it then access to firearms.

Re:Tell me about it.

[sumdumass]

Concealed carry isn't always the answer. From my understanding there was actually an armed security guard in the school at the time but from some reason was helping students instead of guarding them. The armed cops refused to enter the school untill some time after they arived too. The outcome could have been/ should have been/ may have been is always a tuff situation to call. One thing people seem to over look is that the shooters were close enough to people that someone familier with guns could have taken them away and stoped it too.

We have demonized guns so much that aparently everyone was petrified of them or didn't know enough about them to save thier own lives. (that or thay all remebered mistreating these two kids and was afraid they were next). There was an other school shooting wich escapes me at the moment were a student actually was comfortable around guns and was able to wrestle the muzzle into a safe position were another couple of student took it from him. Of course things are different when there is more then one shooter but there would be just as much chance of success as with a conceal carry.

I think if people knew that when 20 people are in the room, he just shot 6 shots from the each revolver, someone needs to reload. that will leave 8 people to help themselve. Gun awareness as well as concealed carry may prevent alot of harm in alot of situation. I'm basicaly replying just to point out that.

Re:Tell me about it.

[Thuktun]

Obviously you have not transcended the level where you can block bullets.

[after watching Neo stop hundreds of bullets in the air]
Merovingian: Okay, you have some skill.

Re:Tell me about it.

[lachlan76]

If you put water on yourself when it's 45 fucking degrees you get suspended....I don't think it's because the water guns look like real ones.

Re:Tell me about it.

[lachlan76]

Traditional martial arts that many kids study work well on more traditional weapons like knives. Kung Fu, et al., don't do much against someone with a gun, IMHO.

It depends on range...a gun is much less dangerous at close range, especially if it has a long barrel. However that is where a knife is more dangerous.

Merged & "Best of"

[quarkscat]

AFAIK, it is not just the USA (Un)Patriot Act (I)
that the Canadians have to be concerned about if
they are worried about their privacy. ECHELON,
TIPPS, and MATRIX all threaten privacy across
national boundaries as well. You don't have to
share a border with the USA to get trapped in
the TIA (Total Information Awareness) spiderweb.
Australia and Britain (and the rest of the EU)
all have to play by Uncle Sam's rules to travel
or do business in the USA.

TIA should be marked with "666". It is the sign
of the beast...

Re:Merged & "Best of"

[dave1791]

Ummm... dude, the Canadians are in on the whole Echelon thing. It is more an English speakers snooping on everybody else thing.

Re:Merged & "Best of"

[twray]

TIPPS? Isn't that the pre-authorized chequing system I use to pay my municipal property taxes? oh, wait, that's just TIPP: Tax Installment Payment Plan my bad.

Canadians don't like the Patriot Act, eh?

[krygny]

Well, here in the US, we're not terribly pleased about how easily almost anyone from anywhere can, at least temporarily, stay in Canada with no practical restrictions. Maybe saunter across a very open border. I thought we were pals. (See? - These things cut both ways.)

Just so you know, even those here in the US who support the Patriot Act on balance, object to some provision or another of it.

Oh, but I've just crashed a US bash-fest and I'm not in style.

Re:Canadians don't like the Patriot Act, eh?

[mwillems]

Easy to be admitted to Canada? When you actually READ that link, you will see there's no easy about it. Officers have to refer you to a board which they only do if you meet specific requirements and which they will NOT do if you meet other requirements (danger to security, criminal, already refused, and many others). None of these are a formality. In fact you will not even be allowed onto the plane to Canada in most countries without going through pre-inspection.

I am an engineer who moved to Canada 10 years ago from a wealthy European country. I have degrees, money, health, the language, everything I need inclduding a Cnadaina wife and two Canadian kids - and yet it took me a year and a half of laborious paperfilling to be allowed in. Believe me, refugees do NOT have an easier time of it.

Re:Canadians don't like the Patriot Act, eh?

[etyam]

Or what about trying to work in the USA?

http://www.laurentgarnier.com/pgs/ustour.htm

Re:Canadians don't like the Patriot Act, eh?

[Dr. Evil]

Refugees are people who will probably not live if you sent them back home.

"I thought we were pals."

Don't identify with your nation like you might identify with a sports team. You are not the U.S., you can't take resposibility for the errors of your government, nor can you take responsibility for their successes. Besides, it makes you sound dumb.

Re:Canadians don't like the Patriot Act, eh?

[Better.Safe.Than.Sor]

Easily? Like Cuban refugees? It seems "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" has a real easy time getting in. Or Nazi scientists. My Canadian borders, my rules. Don't like it? Tough shit.

Re:Canadians don't like the Patriot Act, eh?

[krygny]

"Don't like it? Tough shit."

Well, I can't dispute a salient argument like that. Wait - I just thought of something ...

Oh yeah? Well, fuck you!

Re:Canadians don't like the Patriot Act, eh?

[Trillan]

My brother married a girl overseas. By the time he got her home, their daughter was almost a year old.

Me, I'm waiting for my wife to get here before we start a family. We've been married for just over a year now, and only just got acknowledgement that they're starting the process. So far, it's cost about $2000 in total... and that will double before it's over. And there's certainly no gurantee that they'll approve her, despite us being married.

So unless your post was sarcastic, I think you need to rethink your position. A Canadian girl I knew had a much easier time getting in to the US to be with her husband (although I think it cost more $$$).

obligatory

[tuggy]

in soviet russia, privacy comprimises YOU

Re:Quick hide the WMD Canada!

[aurelian]

On the contrary, Canada should instigate/ramp up its nuclear & chemical weapons programmes right now. For while the possession of WMD has been shown to be a sure safeguard against invasion by the US (e.g. N. Korea, Kuwait), the lack of any (Iraq) clearly puts you at risk.

Kuwait? bzzzrt!

[aurelian]

must have meant Iran.

Canadian email, for example...

[Obstin8]

Here's a disturbing example. Rogers Cable - Canada's largest cable ISP - recently outsourced all their customer-related provisioning to Yahoo; mail, web hosting, etc. By virtue of Yahoo being a US corporation, that means all Rogers Cable's customer's email automatically comes under the purview of the Patriot Act.

I have asked for clarification of this situation from Rogers but have not received a reply. As a Canadian I find it odious that my personal communications can be inspected by a foreign government without cause or warrant, and with no recourse to the law.

Both countries officially espouse 'due process of law'. For those of us looking in from the outside, it sometimes seems the US is working hard to change this to 'due process of erosion of privacy rights' (with a big side order of 'due process of corporate-profit enforcement' but that's another story).

If the tables were turned, and the Canadian government was trolling through American's e-mail accounts, the hue and cry from the south would be deafening. Right now, the only thing deafening is the silence as the American people allow their own government to trample the rights and freedoms that were bought and paid for in one Revolution, 2 World Wars, and countless other military and civil actions.

Don't get me wrong - I am not an Anti-American, as your media would have you believe all Canadians are. Hell, we all grew up watching the same TV shows and news programs, reading the same magazines, driving the same cars and eating at the same restaurants. We all swallowed the same propaganda.

That's why it's especially chilling to watch our neighbours sheepishly acquiesce to - or worse, actively endorse - these 'terror-busting' measures.

If American themselves can't identify and stop the erosion or elimination of their own rights, what hope does that leave for the rest of us?

Chilling, very chilling.

Re:Canadian email, for example...

[Iam]

I think the Patriot Act would apply to data stored in the US regarless of where the data originated from. Now there is much controversy over Canadian data stored in the US because, clearly PIPEDA applies. The interplay between PIPEDA and extra-territorial legislation, and the obligations of those who have the information in their possession, is a very complicated question which would require an exhaustive legal opinion.

Re:Canadian email, for example...

[ergo98]

What the hell are you trying to say in that diatribe?

Re:Canadian email, for example...

[meringuoid]

Hmm. Perhaps if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour, we would all know how to speak German. As it is, you give a fine example of how some of us don't actually know how to speak English.

Just what was that stream of gibberish supposed to convey, anyway?

Re:Canadian email, for example...

[AndroidCat]

On Usenet headers from Rogers customers, I notice that they actually have an address for DMCA complaints:

X-Complaints-To: abuse@rogers.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: radman@rogers.wave.ca
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly

I would have figured that the proper processing for a DMCA complaint would be to laugh and say that it doesn't apply in Canada. However, if they're outsourcing to a company within reach of the DMCA, are they putting their customers in its grasp too?

Re:Canadian email, for example...

[Techguy666]

I was just on the phone with Rogers Cable as I started to type this response. I contacted a technical support droid who escalated this question up to a "senior support" person.

Their answer (after being put on hold for just three minutes) was "We're partnered with Yahoo Canada so we shouldn't fall under the reach of the US Patriot Act". Yahoo Canada's parent company, being situated in the US, makes me suspicious of this quick answer - but Rogers seems to think we're protected still and as long as they're willing to fight under this premise should they have to, I'm okay with it.

The techie then also pointed out that we can opt not to take their Rogers Yahoo bundle and keep our existing services, minus the web hosting and yahoo mail. We won't be forced to move to the Yahoo deal anytime soon.

Hope this puts your mind at rest a bit.

Re:Canadian email, for example...

[Mashiki]

Don't forget CSIS hmm? Due process doesn't always follow the books in Canada.

Not 100% bad

[ari_j]

Do you know what the Patriot Act covers? It has provisions that are clearly unconstitutional, and some of which have been ruled as such by the Courts of Appeals already.

But it also has provisions which are designed to catch money launderers, and do a reasonably good job of it. I know you haven't considered actually reading the law to find out what it actually does, because that would interfere with your fantasy of America being the most intrusive government in the world, but you really should take a look sometime.

Re:Not 100% bad

[zenyu]

But it also has provisions which are designed to catch money launderers, and do a reasonably good job of it.

Only if they use the U.S. banking system to launder their money. I know a few rich people and they have absolutely no problem hiding their money overseas. I would assume terrorists could do the same with the same ease. If you think our borders can prevent someone from throwing a few diamonds into the luggage or shipping container you are sadly out of touch with reality. ...your fantasy of America being the most intrusive government in the world, but you really should take a look sometime.

I don't think this is a very good strawman you have constructed. Besides, you seem to be one of the few who wants to be compared with North Korea as a bastion of freedom. Even the Bush'n'Dick team seems to have higher ideals.

I still believe the entire cannon of U.S. Laws currently in effect should be read each year by each memeber of the House and each member of the Senate in a public square in their district and State, resp. It would both cut down on the number of laws, and dissuade the bastards from passing laws that would get them tarred and feathered.

Re:Not 100% bad

[ari_j]

I agree with you entirely. I'm just trying to make sure people know that the Patriot Act is not 100% about arresting people for thought crime. Maybe 85%, but not 100%.

And yeah, the money laundering thing isn't going to catch any terrorists with an IQ over about 37. Anyone can see that.

I'm thankful that the Supreme Court is currently more formalist than it was through most of the 20th century, because they're finally starting to understand that things like subsistence farming and never leaving your land do not constitute "interstate commerce," the constitutional clause from which Congress purports to derive most of its power to pass laws. Congress was not held in check from 1937 until 1995, and it's coming around gradually. This is why it's not so bad that Bush will get to appoint a justice or two - he's likely to select people like Scalia who may be conservative and may be religious, but who are formalist in reading the Constitution. Scalia will go against his personal principles when the overriding principle of Constitutional formalism tells him to. I hope that Bush picks someone like that, with a spine to stand up to Bush and even to himself when in conflict with the Constitution.

U.S. are cleverer than we give them credit for!

[Cambria]

if you read this replies title you may get the impression that i am pro-american. what i actually mean is that it would not surprise me in the least if the agencies who put forward the patriot act knew exactly what they were doing. I am a brit (currently sat in a leicester uni computer lab) and as such i dont claim to know everything about the U.S. government legal system, however i saw the Micheal Moore fil Fahrenheit 911 a few nights ago and was astounded by the fact that most acts are not even read before they get passed. I firmly believe that those who wrote the patriot act knew this perfectly well and so wrote their own agenda into it hidden behind a shollow mask of "security" we can never really know for sure WHY they want to read canadian mail but it is more than likely not too far from the fact that they believe knowledge is power...and the patriot act is just another way for them to gain power! Matt

Re:U.S. are cleverer than we give them credit for!

[ed]

Most Bills ain't read in the UK Parliament. They trust, Rightkly or wrongly, the Committee process to craft a reasonable bill.

The same is probably true in the US,

I think it's an appropriate time...

[torstenvl]

...to share Ann Coulter's views and stupidity with regard to Canada...

http://homepage.mac.com/onegoodmove/movies/anncoul terCBC.html

Re:I think it's an appropriate time...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I read Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and all about her, but I.. I never really thought she was THAT bad.

Re:I think it's an appropriate time...

[xSauronx]

jesus h christ...she thought canada sent troops to vietnam? i know better than that....why is *she* the one on tv and getting books deals?

Re:I think it's an appropriate time...

[calculi]

It's never an appropriate time to share Ann Coulter's views.

Re:I think it's an appropriate time...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Because she says things that the people who watch Faux News like to hear.

Why her books sell so well confuses me, though.. I never thought so many Fox News viewers could read!

Re:I think it's an appropriate time...

[lamz]

I've read estimates that there were as many Canadians who volunteered to fight with the U.S. Army as there were Americans who fled to Canada to avoid the draft. Just that fact alone can start to explain why the U.S. has grown keener to participate in overseas wars, while Canada has grown less inclined.

In World War I, Canada sent 600,000 troops to fight in Europe. In World War II, Canada sent 1.5 million troops. To put this into perspective, you need to understand that the population of Canada during World War I was 6,000,000 people. The population during World War II was 15,000,000 people. That means that in each of the two world wars, Canada sent 10% of its population to fight in someone else's war.

Now THAT'S a warlike nation!

Re:I think it's an appropriate time...

[bar-agent]

She's Hawt, but Evil. I'm confused...

Re:hah Yeah canada is really free

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying your outrageous taxes ...so that people not as rich as myself can afford to live, yes. Something I do gladly.

only being allowed to purchase booze at state approved stores ...that operate pretty much like any other store. I have no trouble getting hammered either way.

nice central planning for health care. ...thus making sure we have affordable healthcare available to all.

Yeah Canada sure is a Socialist utopia.

So that's what they're teaching in your schools these days, is it? What you have mentioned has nothing to do with socialism. These things are the products of a civilized society founded on social libertarianism. The state leaves me alone unless I ask for help and that's exactly as it should be.

Idiots.

At least I'm happy, safe, well-off and not daily raped by my government.

Woody Allen quote

[faramir_fr]

I believe Woody Allen once say something like:

Being paranoid doesn't prevent you from having enemies

Re:Woody Allen quote

[Fox_Alan]

Just cos you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Re:Woody Allen quote

[statusbar]

just because they are out to get you doesn't mean that you are not crazy

Re:Woody Allen quote

[Lestat_79]

And not being paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you

PATRIOT, etc

[Epistax]

This is a question I've had. A while ago I was given a new word by a teacher. I could have sworn she said "decronym", as it made sense, however that is not a word. The meaning of the word was so good that there must be a correct word out there for it.

The meaning I was told is a decronym is a word which becomes an acronym, after the fact. Such as in this case, "PATRIOT" existed for a long time and the word itself was (well, abused) by finding words to exactly fit it. The example we had in class was "BASIC", which originally stood for nothing but was then given the ol' beginner's all-purpose symbolic instruction code. This one was actually better than PATRIOT in that they called the language Basic, using this context, before it stood for anything.

Anyone know what I'm talking about? Does such a word actually exist? If not, can we make it now?

Overacting

[Corbets]

Just some advice for people further down the line...

Yeah, the Patriot act gives some legitimate cause for concern to people (although I personally don't feel threatened by it). However, Slashdot comments (and some of the editors) are famous for seeing the worst case only and getting so worked up that no one will take them seriously. For example: No offense to Timothy, but I stopped reading his articles a long time ago, since I know exactly what his opinion will be on any given topic (oh, no, government is horrible!).

Many of the posts I've seen above made it sound like the PATRIOT act is the end of the world. One claimed that we now live in an Orwellian 1984-style society. We don't. Sure, mistakes will be made along the way, but it happens all the time. Even with the judicial process, innocent people get tossed in jail from time to time. It happens.

But increasing the government's power (while not something I'm in favor of) is not really a cause of that. The people that work for the government are still just regular joes like you and me who will try their best to be good and do their jobs well. Even if you're one of those left-wing wackos who believes that President Bush is the antichrist, remember that the hundreds of thousands of people who work for him will make their own decisions about right and wrong.

Too many people on Slash see the government (or corporations, for that matter) as big, faceless entities whose sole goal is power and the opression of the little people's rights. Believe it or not, that's not really the goal. So just take it easy with your comments here. Try to reason things out before you post so that we can have intelligent debates instead of spreading FUD about American laws.

And just for my 2 cents on topic, tough luck Canada. :) If you do business that crosses into our country, you need to be held accountable by our laws, whatever they may be. The same holds true in reverse - if we're doing business with your country, then once we, our product, or our communication crosses the border, it's susceptible to whatever laws you have up there.

Re:Overacting

[IndiJ]

The people that work for the government are still just regular joes like you and me who will try their best to be good and do their jobs well. Even if you're one of those left-wing wackos who believes that President Bush is the antichrist, remember that the hundreds of thousands of people who work for him will make their own decisions about right and wrong.

Except you fail to consider the fact that directly or indirectly, those that make and oversee the enforcement of any wacko president's decisions were selected by him. Thus if you put a nut in the oval office, the entire government will be practically nuts, and nutty decisions that would otherwise never see the light of day become the norm.

The same holds true in reverse - if we're doing business with your country, then once we, our product, or our communication crosses the border, it's susceptible to whatever laws you have up there.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!1!!1! THAT'S FSCKING HILARIOUS ^_________^

If your whole comment was a joke, I guess I'm a fool for falling for it. ^_^

He he he - whew! Oh god i think i soiled myself! man, you made my day ^_^.

Re:Overacting

[Nos.]

Nice comment. I'm Canadian, and yes, I think the PATRIOT Act goes too far, but I agree, its not quite at the level Orwell described in 1984.

And just for my 2 cents on topic, tough luck Canada. :) If you do business that crosses into our country, you need to be held accountable by our laws, whatever they may be. The same holds true in reverse - if we're doing business with your country, then once we, our product, or our communication crosses the border, it's susceptible to whatever laws you have up there

Some of us up north here agree with you completely. A company I have worked with is keeping an eye on this issue right now. Though most of the customers don't know it, some of their information/communication passes through the US. I have brought this issue up to this company, and I think its only a matter of time before the news starts picking this up.

A lot of companies in Canada are in similar situations. They've outsourced parts of their services to US based companies. The problem is with PIPEDA (Canadian Privacy Act). I believe it should be changed in one of two ways:

• Explicitly disallow a Canadian company from exporting any of the information protected in the Act
• Force companies to explicitly inform existing and potential customers that information held does pass outside the borders of Canada and thus outside the protection of PIPEDA

It is not the job of the US (or any other country) to enforce the laws and protections available to Canadians

Re:Overacting

[lumpenprole]

If you do business that crosses into our country, you need to be held accountable by our laws, whatever they may be. The same holds true in reverse - if we're doing business with your country, then once we, our product, or our communication crosses the border, it's susceptible to whatever laws you have up there

So if we do business with a country that doesn't really respect our copywright laws, like say Russia or China or India, we should just suck it up? Because we seem to be notoriously bad at that.

Re:Overacting

[cpuenvy]

I completely agree with your point of view.

Part of what happens is that people think they can apply their laws and way of life inside of our borders. Yet, they fail to consider what would happen if you or I tried to do the same thing. What would happen if I went to Canada (which I wouldn't, it is too cold and I don't care for Canada much), and brought my AR-15? What would happen if I went there and burned their flag?

I for one do not trust the government, nor do I trust big business. But, the fact of the matter is, these entities are the backbone of the country we live in, like it or not.

Now, I read alot of the bad points of the Patriot Act here on /. . How about some of the good? How about the terrorist suspects that have been detained because they could be watched easier, search warrant fast tracked and all?

Personally, if I found out that someone had one of my children, and the only person that knew where my child was located was sitting in front of me, I would peel their skin off to find the information I needed to help find my child in one piece. Right or wrong, that is what I would do, and it would not bother me if my government did the same thing to people who were trying to cause a disaster here in this country. The people we are fighting, so we all (yes, even you Canada) can be safe, are animals. These people want your women to hide and not be seen, and they want to be able to execute you if you believe in a different God, or none at all. You people that believe that gays should marry... Go to Iran and try it, lets see how well that works out!

Like you said, there will be some bugs to be worked out. This whole process is new to us, and we are going to make mistakes. The world (and some prominent US polititions) seems to feed on these mistakes like parasites, yet they fail to give credit where credit is due. Lets give the USA credit for kicking the $hit out of 2 countries that were either terror based, or supporting terror. Remember, wacko's, Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers... Is that not a terrorist? Flame away, wackos.

Either way, you have to give the Patriot Act, and also our country, a chance. We may very well be the ones that will come and save your a$$e$ when it hits the fan. Don't think that by being the way you are, you are completely safe from the nasty little world around us. And if you live here, work hard to bring your point across, but do it in a respectable manner.

Re:Overacting

[katharsis83]

"The people that work for the government are still just regular joes like you and me who will try their best to be good and do their jobs well. Even if you're one of those left-wing wackos who believes that President Bush is the antichrist, remember that the hundreds of thousands of people who work for him will make their own decisions about right and wrong."

Ahh, but that's not neccesarily true. Once individuals become a part of a larger group, they take less personal responsibility. There was a study down at Stanford where a group of students were split up into "prisoners" and "guards," and the "guards" were told by the project leaders to basically mistreat their fellow students mere hours ago. Most complied. Same for the WWII Holocaust Camps; most of the soldiers there knew the difference between wrong and right, but it's far more difficult to resist an entire system when you're part of it (I'm not equating the US gov w/wartime Germany, btw.) Also, Bush DOES pick the leaders of each agency and they pick subordinates with similar political views. If you know your boss, and your boss's boss share a certain view and wouldn't mind some "left-wing wacko's" being spied on, the pressure is far greater to ignore your conscience.

"If you do business that crosses into our country, you need to be held accountable by our laws, whatever they may be."

Exactly. That's what SHOULD happen. Too bad the US doesn't follow it. America doesn't like the lack of effective patent-protection legislation in China, and American companies lobby like hell to have the government pressure China to change it; it's working too, "IP protection" is brought up every damn time someone speaks about China. Also, I think America is one of the few nations that're not signatory to the International War Tribunal in the Hague, sharing in the joy with countries like Sudan. just stuff to think about.

Re:Overacting

[merdark]

And just for my 2 cents on topic, tough luck Canada. :) If you do business that crosses into our country, you need to be held accountable by our laws, whatever they may be. The same holds true in reverse - if we're doing business with your country, then once we, our product, or our communication crosses the border, it's susceptible to whatever laws you have up there.

Yes, and as a Canadian, what I'd like to see from our government is laws preventing canadian banks and other companies with sensitive information to avoid using American companies. At the very least, I'd like Canadian companies to be *forced* to tell customers upfront that their information is going to be subject to US law.

That way, it makes it easier for me to avoid doing business with American companies. Simple as that. Don't believe me? When it came out that CIBC outsourced visa data to a US company, tons of people promptly left CIBC for another bank.

Don't fool yourself, Canadians WILL boycott your products over this.

Re:Overacting

[BooRolla]

Even with the judicial process, innocent people get tossed in jail from time to time. It happens.

What a great sense of compassion you got there. Maybe instead of washing our hands of issues like these (Patriot), we could try to fix and minimize them.

Re:Overacting

[Corbets]

Don't fool yourself. Canada isn't a big enough market to notice. ;-)

Ok, I'll play nice from now on. Boycotting our products until/unless we change our laws is perfectly within your right and one of the joys of living in a free society. More power to you!

Re:Overacting

[IndiJ]

Part of what happens is that people think they can apply their laws and way of life inside of our borders.

Pardon me, but what the fuck are you talking about? I have never heard any Canadian publicly or privately suggest that you should follow our laws. Ever. In fact, several, myself included, are jealous of some of them - notably your Constitution's First Amendment.

RTFA. The problem is that my personal and Canadian information can be accessed at any time by a foreign power - the US. How the hell would you like it if Canada, France or Iran could get access to your personal info, Social Security number, health records, etc. etc.? You can play with your damn guns and burn any damn flag you feel like (that's called being tolerant and respecting another culture btw - try it sometime), but I will not be satisfied with you having access to my medical history.

Now, I read alot of the bad points of the Patriot Act here on /. . How about some of the good? How about the terrorist suspects that have been detained because they could be watched easier, search warrant fast tracked and all?

How about the Canadian citizen they wrongly deport to be tortured - without even notifying Canada? How about the Canadian citizen that just disappeared while Americans hemmed and hawed over deciding whether or not he was a terrorist? You wanna lock yourselves up go right the fuck ahead, but why should we stand idly by while you illegally detain and/or deport our citizens? And before you answer that, let me put it in a perspective your small mind can understand, because you appear unable to appreciate world-views other than your own. Imagine your brother goes to visit Hong Kong. You haven't heard from him for two or three days when you suddenly get a call from the government, telling you that the Hong Kong government sent him to Libya a couple days ago. They just informed the US. Then comes the titanic struggle to get your brother out of Libya. Then you finally get your brother back and he tells you he was tortured while in Libya.

You would be irked, yes?

Personally, if I found out that someone had one of my children, and the only person that knew where my child was located was sitting in front of me, I would peel their skin off to find the information I needed to help find my child in one piece. Right or wrong, that is what I would do, and it would not bother me if my government did the same thing to people who were trying to cause a disaster here in this country.

Uh huh. Let's see how you feel about that when YOU'RE the one getting your skin "peeled off" because the knucklehead doing the peeling didn't notice the slight difference in spelling between your name and the name of the real perpetrator, asshole. And yes, THAT CAN AND DOES HAPPEN. Ask that English lawyer who was falsely accused of being a terrorist. These rights that you seem so happy to throw away aren't for your fucking comfort, they're for your safety.

The people we are fighting, so we all (yes, even you Canada) can be safe, are animals.

NO, THEY ARE NOT! THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS. Misguided human beings? Definitely. Evil human beings? Probably. But they are human beings, and the moment you decide that you have the right to treat them as subhuman, I'm no longer with you, I'm so fucking against you it will make your head spin.

These people want your women to hide and not be seen, and they want to be able to execute you if you believe in a different God, or none at all. You people that believe that gays should marry... Go to Iran and try it, lets see how well that works out!

The hell is your point? Rifling through my bank acc

Re:Overacting

[fiftyfly]

(active civil rights abuse)-(usurping of power and perogative to acitvely commit civil rights abuses) = 1/(NOW()-1984). I have discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition that this margin is too narrow to contain. The sig below, although it has been chosen for a rather different reason, must then suffice.

Re:Overacting

[zx75]

No, see the point is that I (being a Canadian) do NOT want my personal records, credit card reports, etc. to be available for the perusal of a Foreign Government because I do business with a Canadian company.

Thats the crux. I know I take my chances whenever I deal with an american company, and thats fine. I accept what happens then, but the problem is that we DO NOT KNOW when our information could be compromised because Canadian corporations have not divulged the use of american contractors.

In the past this wasn't an issue, because the US had essentially the same laws in regards to privacy as we did. But with the introduction of this act, all of a sudden that privacy has been stripped away and now we are left wondering who can access our information? You may not care about the erosion of your rights, and thats fine. We do.

Re:Overacting

[merdark]

This isn't about punishing the US. This is simply about keeping our data private. It would be nice if we had a choice. As is, we don't even know if our data is safe or not!

What about US companies that operate in Canada for instance? By the previous posters logic, they should play by Canada's rules? But is this the case? I remember reading some US legal document saying that they still had to divulge information to the US government.

So what is going on? We need our government to clear these things up. We simply need to know who we can and cannot do business with in order to keep our data private.

It is not nearly as simply as "if data goes physically into the US, sure, the US gov can read it". That much is obvious. Mind you, in some cases companies don't even tell customers when this obvious thing happens!!

Re:Overacting

[dubstar]

And just for my 2 cents on topic, tough luck Canada. :) If you do business that crosses into our country, you need to be held accountable by our laws, whatever they may be. The same holds true in reverse - if we're doing business with your country, then once we, our product, or our communication crosses the border, it's susceptible to whatever laws you have up there.

I think you may be mistaken regarding who's tough luck it is here. If these U.S. companies cannot meet the needs of their Canadian clients (basically ensuring the privacy of information sent across the border), then it is the U.S. companies who lose out - not the Canadians. We're more than happy to do business at home or overseas. Just my 2 cents...

Re:Overacting

[Narsindal]

Funny thing is, a large number of American financial companies are owned by Canadian banks (TD Price Waterhouse). So if we had the Patriot Act, we'd be entitled to browse the financial information of any American using those companies. You would hear an uproar about that. And you'd see Americans dealing solely with American owned companies if they knew.

I happen to work in Canadian healthcare and am quite concerned with where my health data goes. It's irresponsible and willfully disobedient of the gov't of BC to allow my personal, protected data to be handled by a US contractor.

Re:Overacting

[cpuenvy]

Nice!

Perhaps you have split personalities? Something get under your skin today? Is your boss mad because you spend too much time on /. ? LMS?

You gave your opinion, and I gave mine. There is no reason to get all hot and bothered. Having a civil discussion is one thing, but swearing at me and calling me names makes you look quite foolish.

They have medications for your little outbursts, I am sure. You should get that checked before you decide to hurt someone, perhaps even yourself. Serious.

Re:Overacting

[demachina]

"The people that work for the government are still just regular joes like you and me who will try their best to be good and do their jobs well."

Thats probably true of many, lifer, civil servents. Its not at all true of all the political appointess that RUN all those bureaucracies. They can and often are just as much idealogs as their commander-in-chief. They also can aggressively recruit some zealots who who have no concept of right and wrong. Especially since 9/11 they are in abundance, people who will lie, cheat, steal, torture, kill, eavesdrop, as long as they think they are avenging 9/11 and making America safe from the rest of the world. Pretty sure the DOD is full of them, special forces, etc. The CIA and FBI are a little more complicated. I think they have a lot of smart people who know right from wrong but they are no doubt being marginalized by the zealots and fanatics who have no concept of right and wrong.

Lets just look at the CIA. There were a bunch of people at the CIA that knew how full of crap the White House, the Pentagon and their own director were on just about everything about Iraq. And they fought it at every step often by leaking the truth. So if we stop at that point I've proven your theory of government correct. These good people did the right thing when their bosses didn't.

Unfortunately time kept moving and the President appointed a guy named Porter Goss to head the CIA. He has been purging all the disloyal from the top echelons of the CIA and encouraging everyone that isn't going to drink the Koolaid to leave, and many are. Taken to its logical conclusion the CIA will end up as a bunch of idealogs marching to Republican hymns, and rubber stamping their political agenda with phony intelligance.

Lets move over to the Pentagon. There was a head of the Joint Chiefs General Shinseki who made the mistake of saying in public that it would take several hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy and pacify Iraq. For making his "own decision about right and wrong" he was run out of the military on a rail. He in fact was correct and if the U.S. had another hundred thousand boots on the ground in Iraq during the invasion they probably could have controlled the looting and lawlessness that devastated Iraq's basic infrastructure and created a climate of fear and insecurity that persists to this day. They might have had enough troops to guard Abu Graib so it wouldn't have descended in to anarchy.

All in all I'd like to agree with your post and it does sound good on paper but unfortunately in practice it doesn't hold water. The government is a rigid hierarchy driven by very political master, more so today than ever, and the current administration can eliminate the people who do the right thing, and reward, promote and reinforce the people who do the wrong things. Bremer's tenure in Iraq was a disaster but he was rewarded with the Medal of Freedom. Alberto Gonzalez has consistently sought to obstruct congressional oversight, to circumvent the law, to justify the use of torture, and create a basis under which the President can immunize people from the law when he orders them to engage in illegal acts, in effect placing him and everyone working for him above the law. For his misdeeds he's been promoted to Attorney General.

"And just for my 2 cents on topic, tough luck Canada."

I would have to agree with you on this. I'm pretty sure the NSA, through Echelon, has been spying on Canadian's and most of the rest of the world for decades. Not sure there is any reason to get upset about it now if you've been OK with the U.S. spying on the world for all these years.

Its really only Americans that should be pissed off about all this new spying. Previously Americans were mostly exempt from being spied on by the CIA and the NSA, at least since early '70's when they were reigned in by Congress for all of the massive abuses they practiced in the '50's and '60's. Of course those abuses are most probably nothing compared to what they are engaged in today.

Re:Overacting

[BugBlatterBeast]

No, I think it was just that your post was pretty offensive. The little "outburst" looked like an appropriate response to me. (And no, I'm not Canadian either...)

Re:hah Yeah canada is really free

[nostriluu]

Sigh.. this has been covered so many times, but your response doesn't include the fact that when you compare the tax structures Canadians really don't really pay that much more and sometimes less (depending which state/province you compare), the health system costs less of the GNP than in the US and lets people who get sick not lose everything, but you did indeed mention that most countries consider it a good thing to take care of the basic needs of its citizens so they can get on with other things.

It's really not that big a deal to just take of the problem when you consider how nice it makes it to walk around with a social conscience, but it's a great distraction to throw up if you have other agendas.

As for the liquor stores.. that is something I occasionally find over the top too, but everything needs constant tuning, no one is saying otherwise.

Um

[rpjs]

was astounded by the fact that most acts are not even read before they get passed

And you really, seriously believe our MPs read the bills they pass?

Re:Who cares?

[Goth Biker Babe]

The U.S. and Canada are symbiotes both economically and security-wise. More integration is better for everyone. I think a really good idea is Canada becoming a commonwealth of the U.S., like Puerto Rico.

Go from the commonwealth of an ex-colonialist to the commonwealth of a wannabe one. Nice move!

Weary?

[njfuzzy]

I'd hazard that the word you are looking for is "Wary". You know, it means kinda like cautious? While I am sure Canadians are also somewhat tired of the act, the wording doesn't match the context.

In related news....

[IshanCaspian]

...American People weary of Patriot act.

Re:In related news....

[JustNiz]

>> Christianity is being outlawed there, under the cloud of 'hate crime legislation.'

Damn right. Someone woke up and realised that the way christianity is taught in the south of US is as inciteful and fundamentalist as the muslim terrorists.

Re:In related news....

[mtrupe]

Wow.

So I guess you think freedom should be conditional? Freedom for people who think like you, but not like me? You scare me.

And to think, my comment is the one modded down as 'troll.' I think I'll stay away from these Slahsdot commies.

Re:In related news....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the one who modded you down as troll (hence my anonymous posting: I can't post under my username or my moderations will be undone). Your comment was clearly a troll / flamebait remark. You picked on the nuances of hate crime legislation (which I may not agree entirely with myself), purposefully ignored all the areas in which Canadians enjoy more freedom than the US, and then derived a ridiculous conclusion and stated it as truth.

If that isn't a trollish flamebait post, I sincerely don't know what is.

Furthermore, I'm entertained that you fail to see this, and have deemed me a commie in light of my moderation, despite the fact that you know nothing about me.

--Your friendly neighbourhood commie from the north.

Re:In related news....

[Run4yourlives]

Christanity is not being outlawed because you happen to disagree that gays should get married.

Grow the fuck up.

Re:In related news....

[Dunbal]

So I guess you think freedom should be conditional?

"Freedom" is conditional. Try breaking the rules of society and see what happens to your freedom.

Well, of course

[Ender Ryan]

Did all those bombs bring you inner peace?

All those bombs dropping on cities in Iraq have ensured that the US will be loathed, featured, and especially distrusted by third and even some first world countries for at least the next four years.

It's also heartening to know that we have removed the torturous murderers who ran the country previously and have installed our own torturers. It's about damn time we stopped pretending to be civilized and resorted to the tactics everyone despises the most.

Lastly, it helps me sleep at night knowing that our nation's military, the largest, most expensive military in the world, is under the control of a good ol' American redneck who will lie to us to ensure that he can do what he's gotta do to further his own, righteous agenda.

Oh, I guess it's also good to know that all those bombs that we paid so much for didn't go to waste.

Re:Well, of course

[araemo]

It's also heartening to know that we have removed the torturous murderers who ran the country previously and have installed our own torturers. It's about damn time we stopped pretending to be civilized and resorted to the tactics everyone despises the most.

Do you mean we removed the torturers we propped up and bankrolled back in the 80's when they acquired that country? And when did we stop using the tactics everyone despises.. the big difference is that it's on the 8 o'clock news now.

Re:Well, of course

[PhYrE2k2]

"it's also good to know that all those bombs that we paid so much for didn't go to waste."

You kidding me? Where are the WMD's? We were promised WMDs! The US was attacking because Bush felt they may attack the US... sure enough, there was nothing...

Afganistan was for Osama, but also for WMDs... at least they had a backup plan in that case... but again- no Osama captured (and videos to prove it) and no WMDs...

Seems pretty wasteful to me... To Quote Homer Simpson: "You tried your best and you failed miserably... the lesson is, never try.".

-M

Re:Well, of course

[Ender Ryan]

I thought the humorous / sarcastic tone in my post was pretty clear. Was I wrong?

Re:Well, of course

[PhYrE2k2]

Not at all- I was more agreeing with your sarcasm :)

Re:Well, of course

[Ender Ryan]

Yeah, I kinda got that after re-reading your post =)

Re:Well, of course

[Ender Ryan]

the big difference is that it's on the 8 o'clock news now.

Hardly! Maybe outside the US, but not here. The "torture" our media has reported on isn't even the tip of the fucking iceberg. Sexually humiliating people is hardly torture, as far as torture goes anyway.

Electrocution through electrodes attached to genitalia. Freezing people to *death. Cutting, burning, etc. These methods have been witnessed and reported being made by the US.

* Ok, consider this. It is hard to extract information from a dead person. This means one of three things. 1.) incompetence on the part of the interrogators, 2.) simple malice, 3.) the interrogators were actually trying to extract information from another hostage, using the murder of said dead person to scare them.

NEVER ever, will that happen

[NeedleSurfer]

And this I would be ready to fight for... we already did, and won!

Nah I'd go with the EU anytime, that would be really nice, independance trough cooperation I like it...

Nah Na-Nah, Na-Nah Nah ...

[Anonymous Coward]

My country's better than yours ...

Re:Nah Na-Nah, Na-Nah Nah ...

[gowen]

All I'm saying is, if you want those values that are mainly American (paranoia about socialism, unrestricted gun ownership), try America.

Patriot act changes

[nuggz]

(I have not read the Patriot act)

The Patriot act says that a US company must turn over information to the US government, even if such information currently resides outside US jurisdiction or is held by a foreign subsiduary.

I think the pre-existing situation was the US would have to work with the foreign government to get an order to release information not held in the US. This cooperation would ensure the laws of the country holding the information were respected, whereas the Patriot act ignores them.

Re:Patriot act changes

[will_die]

The US Patriot does not change any requirements to work with forgein governments, thoses would be covered under treaties which have a higher presidence then just a normal law.
The main thing that would be affecting this, is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)(could also be the "Buckley admentment" but probably not) and what the US Patriot act allows new under that is that a court can now require the informtion "for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.". A long,list of other items already existed which allowed a court to authorize the action and most of them are far easier to prove and get court approval then that the person they need information on is working for a international terriorism group.

Re:If you don't like it, don't visit here.

[DrXym]

You complain, but you offer no solution. I suggest that you are worse than the problem you complain about.

I suggest you are even worse since you blindly accept the "security" this system offers without considering it properly.

1. Custom officers spend more time taking a photo and fingerprints than actually looking at the person, making a behavioural assessment or asking pertinent questions. The customs officer who photo'd me was more concerned that my finger was on the scanner than the purpose of my visit.
2. Such fingerprints and photos form a vast, vast database containing hundreds of millions of innocent people that must be maintained at great expense.
3. The ratio of terrorists to innocent people is next to zero.
4. Thus there will be a massive number false positives that greatly inconvenience innocent people and a diminishingly small number of genuine hits.
5. Terrorists will simply find other ways into the country, such as entering from a point which has no customs / immigration, or by obtaining a fake US ID, or dual citizenship.

All this measure is faux security or security theatre as some call it. I'm sure the system will turn up the odd murderer, tax evader and such like, but that's not what the system was meant for.

The massive expense could have been spent in far more effective ways such as increased border patrols, more container inspections and plenty of other things that are far more pressing that turning millions of people into criminals simply because of the documents they are holding.

This is not surprising....

[Pig Hogger]

This is far from being surprising, given that canadian was sent to Syria by US authorities and tortured there for a year, thanks to the "Patriot" "act".

Re:This is not surprising....

[Epsillon]

A very moving story. Lets' stop this happening.
http://www.amnesty.org

Re:This is not surprising....

[Pig Hogger]

A popular Canadian fallacy. The Canadian government gave Arar up to the US authorities, and there is an ongoing (Canadian) investigation into Canada's complicity in the matter.

Not a fallacy (only an A.C. would say that), but a fact. Arar was deported while in US custody after the RCMP furnished them with incomplete information. The inquest is about how the RCMP gave the bad information.

Backronym

[pjt33]

Backronym.

Re:Quick hide the WMD Canada!

[mtrupe]

So, I suppose you think people in Iraq and Afgansitan didn't deserve the right to participate in free elections?
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

What do you need security for?

[Gonoff]

The last country that invaded Canada had its capital burned down. They made such a mess of the leaders residence that it has had to be whitewashed for nearly 2 centuries now.
With an example like that, the world should conclude that you people are good friends but lousy enemies!

Re:What do you need security for?

[Harnish]

The force that hit Washington was comprised mostly of British Regulars, the 3rd Brigade to be exact, who were, as you mentioned, fresh from the Napoleonic wars, but it also included a lot of British Militia (which would be the Canadians), including around 300 from York (as an aside, York was renamed to Toronto in 1834). The entire attack on Washington was for revenge for destruction the Americans caused to York and Port Dover, Washington itself had no strategic value at all (Baltimore did). To understand exactly why they took revenge though, we have to look at the Battle of York.

The Americans attacked York on the 27th of April, 1813. Their goal was to attack Kingston and disrupt British supply lines by destroying the naval yards there, but Major-General Henry Dearborn had been informed that an unspecified number of re-enforcements had arrived at Kingston and fearing he was now out-numbered, diverted to a secondary target, York, the capital of Upper Canada. York was defended by only 700 men, more than half of them militia, and had it also had a naval shipyard with two frigates, the Isaac Brock and the Duke of Gloucester, under construction. The Americans had 2700 men and 14 naval vessels, which Dearborn correctly assumed would be sufficent to take York. Dearborn, though, is grossly overweight and in no condition to lead his men into combat, so he places Brigadier-General Zebulon Pike in charge.

Realizing that his forces were insufficient to defend York, General Shaeffe ordered his forces to withdraw to Kingston shortly after the Americans establish a beach head. He also ordered some men to scuttle the Isaac Brock (the Duke of Gloucester had completed construction the day before and sailed to Kingston) in the yards and to blow the powder magazine. Even though the British withdraw, they left the British flag flying over the fort in the hopes that the Americans would be tricked into thinking the fort was still occupied.

Whether or not Pike was fooled, the American forces did advance on the fort. Unfortunately for York, they did so at the same time the powder magazine exploded. It killed 28 American soldiers outright and left over 200 wounded, including Brigadier-General Zebulon Pike who would eventually die of his wounds.

The situation in York degenerates quickly after this. Without any enemy soldiers to take the blame, the American troops avenge their losses on York itself. Private property is vandalised and looted, public buildings are destroyed and burned, and private homes are torched as well. Dearborn is either unwilling or unable to stop his soldiers and by the time the Americans withdraw five days later, York has burned to the ground. When the news reached the militia of the events in York, they wanted blood.

Compare this to the amusing story of Rear Admiral Cockburn (yes, we all know the jokes one can make with that name, and it is the basis of this story) in Washington. There was an anti-british newspaper by the name of the National Intelligencer that has essentially been making fun of him so he went to their offices, fully intending to burn it to the ground. When he gets there, several women from the neighbourhood beg him not to burn the building since the fire would spread to their homes. Cockburn agreed that burning the building was not necessary and had the printing equipment dragged into the street and ordered it burned. He then informed his soldiers to "make sure that all the C's are destroyed, so that the rascals can have no further means of abusing my name."

The major difference seems to be that General Ross and Rear Admiral Cockburn were able to retain control of their men, including the militia that was lusting for blood. This resulted in the destruction in Washington was limited primarily to government buildings.

Watch out America...

[IInventedTheInternet]

You push us Canadians any more we'll write you a very nasty letter, and mail it too!

...we might even use the word damn... I'm sorry, that was rude.

unbelivable

[malsdavis]

"Actually the US has just as good a safety net for the poor (I've read a number of articles that the say $ quantity of support is even more),"

I'm sorry, but that is just absolute, total, utter c^@p!

Most international surveys rate Canada right up there with the levels of social welfare of West & Nothern Europe (which are generally accepted to have the highest levels in the world).

I doubt there has ever been a survey - not counting the ones issued by the Whitehouse and other right-wing rednecks (and I'm sure they REALLY cary about the welfare of the poor) - that places USA welfare anywhere near Canadian levels over the past 50 years! Trying to claim any sort of viable financial assistance is given to the poor in the USA that anywhere approaches Canada is just absolutly absurd and a plain lie.

I suppose with the privitisation of social security, America's poor will be given an even higher standard of living will they?

Yea, and after retiring from office, George Bush will leave his multi-million dollar texas ranch and start delivering the help himself to the ghettos full of mexican immigrants simply left to rot in nearby cities. ...Or atleast he may aslong as it doesn't effect Texas Social Security Corporation's profit margin!

tax/person: USA=$6702; Canada=$5545

[Cryofan]

from a chart of the top 50 nations for "Revenues per capita" (meaning how much they have in the budget to spend per citizen:
>>>>>
27. United States $6702.42 per person
28. Jersey $6666.22 per person
29. Man, Isle of $6531.01 per person
30. Austria $6472.72 per person
31. Cayman Islands $6324.22 per person
32. Israel $6294.41 per person
33. Qatar $6119.56 per person
34. Singapore $6053.90 per person
35. Guernsey $5882.62 per person
36. British Virgin Islands $5591.34 per person
37. Andorra $5567.60 per person
38. Canada $5545.35 per person

>>>>

OK, now I know you are a "free market" conservative, and everything, but I really think that even YOU can see that $6702 is more than $5545. But since you are what you are (hey, I used to be one myself), I am going to put a real fine point on this for you: the taxes in America, all totalled up and everything, are MORE per person that they are in Canada. Period.

Ruled by fear

[HangingChad]

The Patriot Act is rooted in fear. We had indications there were persons of interest in this country taking flying lessons before 9-11, we just didn't act on them. And don't blame the agents on the ground, they raised the warning. It was mid-management at the bureau who didn't take the reports seriously.

Before that it was almost 10 years between the first attempt on the WTC and the second.

So out of anger and fear we craft the badly misnamed US Patriot Act. An act that stomps on friend and foe alike, but hardest on our own people. We create yet another new massive federal bureaucracy to protect us. What do you suppose all those people at that massive new federal agency are going to do for the next 10 years to justify their existence? They're going to put their own people and friendly visitors through endless procedure and invasive, pointless snooping. All to try and find a handful of people patient enough to wait another decade or longer.

In some ways the terrorists have already won. How easily we're spooked into throwing over constitutional protections that used to be the envy of the world. Thousands died on the battlefield to protect those freedoms but what's that sacrifice to a generation that grew up under the coddled over-protection of those ridiculous Baby On Board signs?

I hope our friends to the north don't take it personally because it's not.

Re:Ruled by fear

[Xyrus]

Remember, according to the CDC statistics on fatalities you're 80 times more likely to die in your own bathtub over the course of your life than die in a terrorist attack.

~X~

"Being afraid of the wrong things makes you more likely to die from the right things."

Re:Quick hide the WMD Canada!

[Chemicalscum]

to damn right I have long been arguing that we should have a nuclear weapons program - after all Canada has only ever been invaded by one country. We whipped them then and sent them scuttling back across the border. Of course they don't tell it it that way in the U.S history books.

PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[scorp1us]

Both share the fact that both were born out of paranioa.

PATRIOT came from Terrosit fears.

Socialism came from the great depression.

Everyone knows both are unconsitutional. The Patriot Act will be overturned in whole or in part, eventually, if enough people care. Socialism, particilarly Social [in]Security if nothing more than socialit welfare, which has no place in the United States.

Many people think that Social Security is a a sure thing. Recently, the only good thing to come from the Bush administration is the paranoia they are causing about its collapse. Reguardless of WHEN it will collapse, it WILL collapse. 2050 by my estimate. Al Gore chamioned a "locked box", Bush is pushing for private accounts. Why are they doing this? Because your SS (FICA) funds are deposited in the federal treasury, along with all the other tax money. Only the SSA knows how much you SHOULD get. Whether or not you get it is up to congress. Every year, Congress has to authorize the allocation from the treasury for SS. If Congress ever fails to allocate those funds, say for an economic or war crisis, no one on SSI gets thier money for that year.

Social Security is theft. It is the only insurance that you pay for that you don't know if it will be there when it is your turn.

I also object to SS on moral grounds. It enslaves our kids (YOUR KIDS, I don't have any) to pay for MY retirement. Do you think that is fair. Most would call it slavery.

Don't even get me startedon govt health insurance...

But anyway bak to the topic: We need a law that says no knee-jerk laws for 1 year after a catastripic event.

Here's a fact for you. Less than 5000 people died in the TWC. 15,000 people are killed in automobiles a year, over 1/2 by drunk drivrs. But you don't see us installing breathalizers in every car.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[justins]

Both share the fact that both were born out of paranioa.

PATRIOT came from Terrosit fears.

Socialism came from the great depression.

A history lesson, and a question. First, socialism was a potent force well before the great depression, particularly in Europe. The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848. Socialism did not in any way "come from the great depression."

You're right in thinking that the great depression helped socialism in the US along, of course. But here's the question: how were the socialists paranoid in observing that a poorly implemented capitialism had devastated their lives? They would have been paranoid if they had posited something terrible happening because of unchecked capitalism and it never did. But, well, it did happen. And we have markets which are certainly more regulated and less "free" than they were before the depression, to prevent it from happening again.

I also object to SS on moral grounds. It enslaves our kids (YOUR KIDS, I don't have any) to pay for MY retirement.

You sort of dilute the definition of "slavery" with arguments like this. Which is your prerogative, I guess, I'm just saying. :/

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[CrimsonAvenger]

They would have been paranoid if they had posited something terrible happening because of unchecked capitalism and it never did. But, well, it did happen

Umm, no. Proximate cause for the Great Depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs, and the corresponding tariffs passed in other nations in retaliation. Those tariffs were NOT an example of "unchecked" capitalism, but rather the reverse.

At a slightly greater remove, the Great Depression was a side-effect of the industrialization of the world to support WW1, and the inability of that new industry to convert to peacetime production. Problem there wasn't "unchecked" capitalism either, but governments making war (and spending money they didn't have to do so) "unchecked".

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[justins]

And the collapse of the stock market had nothing to do with the depression. Right.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[scorp1us]

I meant to say "Socialism [started in the US because of] the great depression." Not that it was birthed in America. That is just the despression caused peice of it to be brought here.

Sorry for the confusion.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[scorp1us]

What would happen if Canada got bombed, or suffered huge enviromnental damage, or a plague that forced people to leave/die. You would have no base to pay to support your future self. That in itself in a very risky assumption.

In fact it WILL happen. the WPO is immensely concered that the word population will hold steady in 2030, and begin to decline by 2050. While location may be a big factor in when you feel the effects, they will be felt. We are more educated and more widely educated, than any other time in human history. And with this comes with a lower birth rate. People don't need kids to run the farm. Excelt birth control exists, and as such many couples are choosing replacement or less (1 kid or none) That is the major factor in the birth rate.

Anyway, you have "hope" as that your retirement will be paid by others. Thats all it is... hope. Well hope is not good enough for me. Maybe is our SSA was better legislated to protect the funds we pay in, but still... Chile now has a 100% private retirement system... the result? The same return with HALF the investment. Simple economics dictates that goverments are not the best way to get return.

You have this happy-go-lucky everyone group-hug mentality. We all share alike. I bet if you had kids, you'd let TV raise them too, because the TV is a community resource. You can't trust others to raise your kids, nor can you trust the government with your retirement.

What is so repulsive to you about taking reponsibility for yur actions? Why is planning your own retirement so appauling to you?

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[scorp1us]

I dilute nothing:

slavery Audio pronunciation of "slavery" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slaveries

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
1. The practice of owning slaves.
2. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

Federal Taxes require that 50% of my time before lunch be done and awared to them. Part of that is the Social Security Contribution. Since there is no gaurentee that I will ever see that money, and I get no kind of benefit from it, at least one of those hours before lunch is done AS SLAVERY to the retired elite. I may not live on a plantation or call anyone "master" but I am forced to work to provide for the lives of others. That is slavery. Just because they were slaves once too does not make slavery right.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[CrimsonAvenger]

And the collapse of the stock market had nothing to do with the depression. Right.

Not very much, really. Black Tuesday certainly traumatized a lot of people, but it didn't do all that much to drive the economy into Depression (for all that it is considered the keynote event).

One year before the crash, the Stock Markets were about where they were just before the passage of the Smoot Hawley tariffs. During that last year, the Markets increased by 50%. A few months after the crash (and just before the passage of Smoot Hawley), the Markets were heading back up (a fairly normal bounce from a fall, just as the "collapse" was a fairly normal reaction to a runup).

Then comes Smoot-Hawley, and the market turns downward for another two years. And the rest of the world's economy follows suit. Note that the Markets lost more value after the passage of Smoot-Hawley (which was, ostensibly, to protect American industry so as to help the economy get back on its feet) than they did before.

If that insane spike in stock prices that was 1929 is discounted (and it should be - there is no way on God's green earth that the total value of American companies increased by 50% in one year - it was a dot-com boom-bust on an epic scale), then virtually the entire collapse in value of the US stock markets happened AFTER Smoot-Hawley. Which means either that Smoot-Hawley was a cause, or the effect (Great Depression) happened IN SPITE OF government controls.

Given that the New Deal (started in 1933) didn't actually do much to cure the Depression (it took WW2, and the destruction of much of the industry in the rest of the world), there is not much reason to believe that the government interventions in the economy (including Smoot-Hawley) of the '30s were a shining example of the usefulness of governments' control over economies. Rather the reverse.

Now, there is always the question of whether the Markets (and the economy) would have recovered if left to their own devices. Unfortunately, since we don't have a way to check alternate cases, we'll never know. And it's unlikely we'll even be able to make good guesses. Historically, however, government interventions in the economy have seldom produced the stated results, and frequently have produced, shall we say, less than optimal results.

So I think I'll stick with reasonably free markets as an ideal, and settle for the fact that the governments (not just our government, but all of them) are acting with the best of intentions, but are rather stupid....

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[justins]

So I think I'll stick with reasonably free markets as an ideal

Nothing I wrote was meant to disagree with that. "Reasonably" is a compromise position, though, which in itself is pretty upsetting to some people.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[justins]

Since there is no gaurentee that I will ever see that money,

Doesn't your argument sort of hinge on this? I mean, if there is the expectation that society will provide for you when you're old as you're providing for the old now, is it still slavery?

I'll stand by my opinion that "wage slavery" and other pop uses of the term "slavery" dilute the meaning of the word, in spite of its presence on dictionary.com. :)

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[justins]

I meant to say "Socialism [started in the US because of] the great depression." Not that it was birthed in America. That is just the despression caused peice of it to be brought here.

Sorry for the confusion.

You would have still been wrong. Remember, the first "red scare" in the United States happened in the period following WW I, before the depression. Socialism was already here as a political force.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[scorp1us]

It is simple math. When SS started, we had 30 people putting in for every 1 person taking out. Now we have 1.1 people putting in for ever 1 person taking out. What happens when we have 0.9 people putting in for every 1 taking out? You raise taxes. You pass the burden onto the people. You make it harder for them to buy houses and cars and education. Right now, people if they had no federal income tax could pay for a house in under 10 years! Not only would they save an ass-load in interest, but they would be out of debt, which is generally considered a good thing.

Now, lets stop putting money into social security. We only need to scrounge around for 20 years before we have economic freedom for the country. If every person put the money that the govt confiscates for SS into a private account like Chile does, our social security checks would be twice as big! Talk about a strong economy - old people would continue to be a driving force in the economy with all that extra cash.

Interstingly enough, as a result of having so much extra cash to spend, the government would get more tax money from the retirement accounts than they do now!

We are eating ourself.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[justins]

Look, I largely agree with you, but you're totally oversimplifying matters. Your first paragraph reminds me of the "story problems" in high school that ignore basic factors like friction.

For example:

What happens when we have 0.9 people putting in for every 1 taking out? You raise taxes.

That's not necessarily true. If you maintain decent levels of employment and make workers much more productive, for example, (as we have) it's obviously at least possible for that 0.9 worker to support the 1 worker. On the other hand, if you make supporting retirees more expensive in a variety of ways (as we have), things might swing the other way.

Note that I think private accounts are one of Dubya's (very) few decent ideas, so I'm probably on your side in this. But the issues aren't so clear cut. If they were, the reform would probably have already happened. At this stage both sides (insofar as there can be said to be sides in the debate) aren't even speaking the same language, from what I can tell.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[scorp1us]

Yes, I did knowinly oversimplify, but all things being equal, that is the only way to go. The economy, and the economies of the world are all unpredictible. Technology alone has huge effects. If everone putting in can put in so much more than ever needs to be taken out, then yes, we'll be fine.

We are dealing with integrals here, and as such the smallest changes can have big changes on the outcome.

The best way to deal with the situation is to get out of it. We don't need to continue this shennangans any longer. We know it is going to be harder and harder to sustain, and we'll probably break our backs doing so. Find a way to pay for those who paid in and stop making people pay into a system where there are no guarentees.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[zenyu]

And the collapse of the stock market had nothing to do with the depression. Right.

Right.

The stock market crashed because the economy crashed.

That's how this market thing works. You should learn something about capitalism, even if you don't believe in it. You do live in a capitalist world.

Why the economy collapsed is a much more complicated issue. Which I'll leave you to discover yourself.

But you should know the market didn't even hold back the recovery in the 1930's, it rebounded quite quickly in fact. But a much smaller portion of economy was heavily influenced by stock market conditions back then, and the dollar was still pegged to a conservative commodity so there was no way for the anyone to deflate the currency quickly except by increasing spending, which Hoover failed to do when it might have helped. Today we can lower interest rates, and only have to resort to borrowing and spending under dire conditions when the interest rates start approaching zero.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[kilfarsnar]

"If every person put the money that the govt confiscates for SS into a private account like Chile does, our social security checks would be twice as big!"

This is pure hyperbole. Twice as much? Are you really positing that stocks outperform bonds 2 to 1? Cuz that's what SS is; government bonds.

I must say I am often curious about people who are so anti-tax. You'd think you pay money and never see any benefit. Yes, we pay taxes (some of the lowest in the world BTW) but we get things like streets and parks and police and firefighters and a military and a court system and, yes, Social Security. And despite what the president tells you, you are quite likely to see a benefit. You are correct that Congress could just stop paying SS benefits. But this is the case with any law or program. Besides, go ask any senator, turning off the tap on SS would be political suicide. A sizeable majority of Americans like SS, and politicians need to get re-elected. Why do you think so many Republicans are reluctant to get on board with the president?

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[fishbowl]

"Socialism [started in the US because of] the great depression."

*cough* Eugene V. Debs and Victor Berger, Socialists, 1898. *cough*

The 1930s are considered the *decline* of Socialism in the US.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[scorp1us]

Yes, stocks beat bonds. Particularly when you have a declining dollar. Stocks readjust themsevles with every sale to a lower dollar. Or higher dollar.

You mention:
"streets and parks and police and firefighters" To which I say LOCAL, LOCAL, LOCAL, LOCAL. There is nothing wrong with local taxes. In fact local taxes should be higher than federal taxes. But when I say that, I also mean federal taxes should be a lot lower.

There will be a day in the not too distant future when turning off the tap will not be suicide. That point is defined as when the Generation X and Y people turn out to the voting booths in more numbers than the baby boomers.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[kilfarsnar]

Ok, I can dig the difference between local and federal taxes. States and municipalities get money from the federal gov't though. But maybe that would be made up for in higher local taxes.

But I am sure you realize that we spend an astronomical amount of money on our military. And then there's the 10% of yours and my taxes that pay the interest on the national debt every year. And the federal gov't regulates interstate commerce, which requires a bureaucracy. I am not saying that every gov't program is good or appropriate. But I do think I benefit from another person's being helped by the gov't if need be. I am not talking about a hand-out. But case in point: In 2001 I was laid off from my job and was without one for 4 months. Would it have been better for me to lose my apartment and be on the street, or to have the gov't help me with unemployment? You may not think you benefit from my having a place to live and food to eat, but you do. Indirectly, but you do.

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[justins]

That's how this market thing works. You should learn something about capitalism, even if you don't believe in it. You do live in a capitalist world.

I do believe in it. I suppose if you read just one sentence of one of my messages in this discussion out of context you might have been led to believe otherwise.

Why the economy collapsed is a much more complicated issue. Which I'll leave you to discover yourself.

That's helpful. You've definitely displayed an astounding amount of knowledge here, and more than justified your condescending attitude. Good job!

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[justins]

but all things being equal

Which they never are. :)

Re:PATRIOT Act and Socialism in the US

[CrimsonAvenger]

Note by the way, that there were two things done after 1929 that would actually tend to limit future "depressions":

1) FDIC and FSLIC were created to prevent banks from failing. This acted to minimize loss of consumer confidence during later economic downturns. Consumer confidence is the biggest positive feedback element in the economy - if they're optimistic, they buy, which pushes the economy up, making them more optimistic. And vice versa when they're pessimistic.

2) Rules against Margin trading. Much of the "money" that existed in 1929 was imaginary, even by modern loose definitions - people bought on margin (made a small downpayment on the stock), and sold when the stock went up (which it did all through the 20's), thus having "paper fortunes" (most of their "wealth" was actually tied up in the margins that they were betting on, but they didn't notice, since stock prices didn't go down) that evaporated into air when the stock markets fell.
This left them no poorer than they had been (they were worth about as much as ever, which is to say not much), but it made them FEEL poorer - one day they owned $100,000 in stock (frequently with nothing invested at all, or only a nominal amount), after the margin calls, they had to sell all that stock to pay off the margins. Leaving them in the hole by whatever cash they had to come up with after selling their stocks, but feeling like they were $100,000 in the hole. Note the comment about consumer confidence above.

Do I consider those to be unwarranted government interference in the market? Not especially. But they do act as a brake on the markets - banks have to pay for the FDIC/FSLIC, and that money isn't going into the interest that your money is earning. And is raising slightly the cost of borrowing money. Margin buying is almost insanely risky, but does allow for buying with little liquidity, which means more of your money can be earning money at any given moment.

Is the downside worth the cost? Yes, I think so. We haven't had a new Great Depression yet, anyway. Will these measures prevent any future depressions? No. It'll happen, sooner or later, probably as a result of some ill-conceived attempt to "save" the taxpayers from their own idiocy.

Which attempts always fail, in the end - make something idiot-proof, and we'll breed a better grade of idiot to get around it.

"You can make things fool-proof, but you can't make them damnfool-proof"

Re:Funny...

[conteXXt]

Religion? Check. That allowed.

Firearms? Check. Them too.

Differences?

No religion in Government (would be discriminatory)

Firearms arent sold in convenience stores and must be licensed.

These are Rights we dont mind losing.

but it cool if you dont get it, you keep fighting for your guns and theocrasy.

Re:Good Luck On That One

[Scudsucker]

If I were Iran or North Korea, I would be loving Canada right now.

Why's that? Bush himself can't do dick about either country right now. Korea has nukes already, and we don't have the troop strength to invade either country right now.

but with great benefit to countries like Canada.

What benefit is that? Canada, like most sensible democracies that keep their noses out of other people's business, doesn't suffer from international terrorism.

Old joke

[Eslyjah]

Canada is uniquely situated. They could have had French cuisine, British culture, and American Technology. Instead, they ended up with British cuisine, American culture, and French technology.

Amen to that.

[The Queen]

Excerpt from my latest column:

"Our president wants to "spread democracy" around at the point of a sword, because America doesn't feel safe in a world where there are people who look, think, act, govern and worship in ways other than what we believe to be right. For if we tolerate other ways, that might mean that other ways are right, and we are therefore wrong."

yeah, but your customs officials are vicious

[Scudsucker]

My dad and I were ordered to pull over for a search when we we driving from North Dakota up through Winnipeg to go fishing. I think they have the place surrounded by cameras not to catch smugglers or terrorists, but to fine the employees if they so much as hint at a smile.

Anyway, they poked around our vehicle for a good couple of hours. And it's all because I had the nerve to say "eh?" back to the girl in the booth, when she said "oh, are you going fishing, eh?" when she saw the canoe on the top of my dad's SUV. At least I didn't say "no doot aboot it", or else they probably would have ordered up a round of cavity searches.

Not necessarily

[IndiJ]

... I really think that even YOU can see that $6702 is more than $5545.... [T]he taxes in America, all totalled up and everything, are MORE per person that they are in Canada. Period.

Period? These numbers are meaningless. They tell me that Canadians pay an average of 82.7% of what Americans pay in taxes. Now if Canadians earned the same amount as Americans your point would be valid, but we don't. Our average income is much smaller than yours - the most recent numbers i could find are from 1999, but they put us at 78.1% (http://www.csls.ca/reports/drache.pdf).

IANAE (i am not an economist), but factoring that into the numbers puts our relative taxes (assuming we earned the same) at $7109.42, which clearly is more that $6702.42.

If the original numbers you posted took that into account, I apologize, but it appears they did not (they took exchange rates into account only).

Re:Not necessarily

[dago]

I guess that the OECD stats should be pretty good as well.

For taxes + social security, they put both Canada at 25% and USA at 24%. Not a huge difference.

Same goes for the gross wage, canada is at 32926 US$ and USA at 33456 US$, when balanced with purchasing power & exchange rates.

on moral relativism...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Americans know quite a bit about the rest of the world."

Or at least some of us do, I was a little pissed off at the GP for writing that we didn't.

"We don't subscribe to the "live-and-let live" moral relativism that many other countries espouse. We want to make the world a better place for the oppressed."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but supporting the Iraq invasion on grounds you are spreading democracy is the height of moral relativism. You're saying "it's OK to kill X amount of innocent people because Y amount of oppressed people will (hopefully) be liberated". It's the ends justifying the means. If that's not moral relativism I don't know what is.

Re:Quick hide the WMD Canada!

[mtrupe]

Whatever. It amazed me that some people can be so elite as to think that people in the middle east are less entitled than they. I guess you're a racist.

Planning attacks on the White House

[SenorCitizen]

I once heard an anecdote (and have no reason to believe it's just an urban legend) about a Finnish man who went to visit some relatives in the USA. He didn't know much, if any English. When they handed out the immigration forms on the plane, he apparently checkmarked every intended crime, including selling drugs, attacking the White House, committing fraud, and using illegal firearms.

The really scary part is that the FBI was waiting for him at the airport -- they do take the stuff seriously, even though anyone who was really planning something would never confess to it like that.

Re:RTFA, besides this was going on before Patriot

[will_die]

They can be ordered by the court to stay quiet for certain period of time (IIRC less then 30 days) that can be extended by the court if the investigation is still in progress.
Are you upset that companies were not able to alert child molesters that they are being investigated? That was allowed before the US Patriot Act, which extented that portion to use the same action "against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

first thing that came to my mind...

[CAIMLAS]

"No fucking shit lady, what do you think I'm doing, ordering a pizza?!"

The sentiments, if not the words, are appropriate.

PDF of the Patriot Act

[brandoncorbin]

http://www.printfu.org/storage/longTermStorage/pat riotAct.pdf

I know this well

[bigberk]

[Posted AC to protect my freedom!]

I am a Canadian contractor who lives and works from Canada. On occasion, I have developed software for the Canadian government. However, my business servers are located in California and when I got my servers I pretty much accepted the fact that any data I send down south is intercepted by a police agency.

The way I protect myself and sensitive data is through heavy use of GnuPG, where the keys are not stored in the USA obviously. This way I can tell my Canadian government/corporate clients that sensitive data is never readable while it is stored in the USA.

Re:Quick hide the WMD Canada!

[Master Ben]

That's right. I'd like to see those american jokers cross the border and attempt an invasion. We would whoop your ass straight back to Washington.

Re:Who cares?

[Laebshade]

The U.S. and Canada are symbiotes both economically and security-wise. More integration is better for everyone. I think a really good idea is Canada becoming a commonwealth of the U.S., like Puerto Rico.

Mr. President, you heard it here first, they're actually begging us to invade!

Decapitation Strike

[dmaxwell]

Obviously the Soviets never heard about Wing Attack Plan R.......

It should be called the NATIONALIST Act

[Open Council]

Because, as someone more famous than me said

A Patriot is someone who loves their country, while

A Nationalist is someone who hates everybody else's countries.

Al-Qaida targets GI Joe!

[amightywind]

The Patriot Act was the result of Paranoia.

Perhaps, but consider that under Bush post 9/11 security policies Al-Qaida has been degraded to the point where they cannot even get away with taking a GI Joe hostage.

Re:Al-Qaida targets GI Joe!

[Jimmy9Toes]

LOL!!!

You're being Sarcastic, right?

The only thing the Patriot act has accomplished is proven to our enemies that we are a nation of frightened sheep.

Re:Al-Qaida targets GI Joe!

[AndyL]

Good thing the FBI has the right to look up what library books I've got out, otherwise the military would never have saved that one guy's life in Iraq.

Re:Al-Qaida targets GI Joe!

[jericho4.0]

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Re:Good Luck On That One

[geoffrobinson]

Like the person feeding the crocodile, they will be eaten last.

The U.S. is the nation trying to kill the croc.

But Canada, unlike France, Germany, Russia and China, isn't helping countries like Iran. I will give them credit on that.

One sidenote: To the person who thinks I was trolling. I firmly believe the "we'll just talk and sort things out without any threat of force" is both naive and dangerous. History will bear this out so I am not sweating the negative moderation points.

Re:hah Yeah canada is really free

[asoap]

I love our liquor stores! While it is less of a convenience to be able to go to the grocery store or convenience store and pick up some booze, I love the benefits that we get from the LCBO that we wouldn't have otherwise. The LCBO (liqour control board of ontario) goes through great lengths to do quality control on all of the products it sells. If you purchase a bottle of wine that claims to be from Southern California, you can bet that is where it comes from. They chemically analyze all of there drinks, and they know the chemical makeup of the soil in Southern California, so they will compare the wine to the soil. If they find that certain products are lying, or they contain to much crap, the products don't get sold.

Personally, I love it. I also love it that the liqour stores are very pleasent to visit. I don't think I've ever met a rude employee at an lcbo.

Anyway, that's my $0.02

Canadian Privacy Laws are Very Tight.

[killerkoi]

I work with a company in Toronto. I asked for an associates information so I could contact him, but was given a line about the current privacy laws in Canada. I had to give my information so that it could be passed onto my associate for him to contact me. All information had to be voluntarily given by the owner of the information. It was a pain, but I can see why they did it.

The Canadians are taking initiative that the US didn't take a few years ago.

Re:Count your blessings!

[Cackmobile]

I shouldn't have to point this out but you cannot say that the Patriot act works because we have had no terrorist acts.

'This is my tiger proof rock. it keeps tigers away'

Re:RTFA, besides this was going on before Patriot

[LordEd]

They can be ordered by the court, but with the Patriot act, they don't need to ask the court. It just happens. They can invoke their right to violate your rights without judicial review.

In relation to the topic and being canadian, i'm personally not too worried about Americans violating my privacy, even if my shopping receipts find their way down there somewhere.

Its the Americans who have reason to worry. Your rights, your freedoms. If you don't want them, its up to you.

Re:RTFA, besides this was going on before Patriot

[will_die]

No they cannot, anything of content requires that they get a court order.
You are mixing that up with URLs and email address that under the US patriot act treated as phone numbers. So provided the content is not looked at they can be recorded without a courts approval but they do have to be under active investigation; ie just like a phone number.

Pot-Kettle-Black

[cyberElvis]

"Thankfully, privacy still means something up here."

Oh, really? Is that why you have to register every gun in the country with the Canadian government or face charges?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/06/30/gun_registry0 30630/

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, really? Is that why you have to register every gun in the country with the Canadian government or face charges"

Dude, you make it sound like "if you don't own a gun, you're an idiot" ... every time someone says something like this, it reinforces the reverse.

I [canadian] am so weary (sick and tired) of hearing about how your precious little guns empower you. If your 2nd ammendment rights instead said you had the right to mount a Hibachi on the dashboard of your car, would you mock the world for their stupid but safe Hibachi-less dashboards.

Yes, US, we like you. But in the world community you've become like that twitchy person that no-one wants to talk to unless they really have to. And you have a gun. Do the math.

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[Anonymous Coward]

And you have to get a driver's license in order to drive. What's your point?

With your knee jerking like that watch you don't hit yourself in the chin.

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[kilfarsnar]

Honest question: Why is gun registration so bad?

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[Daniel Boisvert]

If your 2nd ammendment rights instead said you had the right to mount a Hibachi on the dashboard of your car, would you mock the world for their stupid but safe Hibachi-less dashboards.

Naturally. =)

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[Daniel Boisvert]

Gun registration has historically been a precursor to outright bans and confiscation in many countries. If the government doesn't know you've got firearms, they can't take them away. Sure, they can knock on your door and demand you turn your firearms over, but it's easy enough to tell them you don't have any--and they can't prove otherwise.

The US is a very young country, and a large part of the founding of our country was for freedoms of speech and religion. In our not-so-distant past we fought a revolution to overthrow a rule we felt was unjust. This would not have been possible without the broad ownership of firearms (or the help of the French, for that matter ;).

Up until a hundred years ago or so, firearms were still commonly used for self defence in the less settled parts of our nation. Even today, they're used by plenty of people as tools. Ranchers have to protect their herds from coyotes; folks who live in the country may have to protect themselves from bears or wolves; farmers have to protect their fields from all manner of wildlife that will happily eat their entire crop. To folks who use firearms as tools, it seems foolish and unnecessary regulation to have to register them. You don't have to register a screwdriver or welding torch, and you could easily kill someone with either of those, so why would you have to register firearms?

Then there's another group of people which doesn't think the government has any business regulating what they can and can't have in their homes. It's mine, I paid for it, and it's none of your damned business. There are many people here who are very particular about their privacy.

Lastly, the anti-gun lobby in the US is pretty open about professing slippery slope tactics. The people behind the contentious Brady Bill and the recently-expired Assault Weapons Ban (the name doesn't remotely fit the contents of the bill, btw) are quite clear that they first intend to outlaw scary-looking guns, then high-powered guns, then get 'em all registered, and then work on each subgroup one at a time until they get all guns outlawed. Would you give any concessions to a group which has openly stated such goals and methodology? :)

There are even more reasons that I'm sure I've overlooked, but I think this is a decent overview. Anything related to firearms in the US is highly-charged politically for a good many reasons, the least of which being that our politicians have a zillion other things they should be worrying about first. ;)

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[kilfarsnar]

That was coherent and concise. Thank you. You make good points and have given me something to think about. Some counter points though:

"You don't have to register a screwdriver or welding torch, and you could easily kill someone with either of those, so why would you have to register firearms?"

Because a firearm's intended purpose is to kill things, the exception being target shooting. This is not the case with other tools. It's been said that any tool is a weapon if you hold it right. But a gun is a weapon that can be a tool if you use it right.

"Sure, they can knock on your door and demand you turn your firearms over, but it's easy enough to tell them you don't have any--and they can't prove otherwise."

I think that if the gov't is at the point of coming to your door and asking about your guns, they'd probably just bust in a search your house. In this day and age I don't think an armed populace can defend itself against a gov't anyway. Look at the insurgents in Iraq. They have RPG's but they won't be able to defeat the US militarily. We may have guns, but the gov't has tanks and missiles. But I guess if there is no registration, there are a lot more houses to search.

"Then there's another group of people which doesn't think the government has any business regulating what they can and can't have in their homes. It's mine, I paid for it, and it's none of your damned business. There are many people here who are very particular about their privacy."

I can definitely get behind that.

Personally, I don't think much about guns or their registration, as I do not own one and have little desire to. Though I have gone shooting with friends, and had a good time. I live in a major city and view guns as rather unnecessary and often hazardous. Your examples of ranchers and the like are different circumstances, of course. Basically, I support a person's right to own a gun, but would advise them not to. Thanks again for the food for thought!

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[Daniel Boisvert]

You're right about a primary use of a firearm being to kill things (If I was in a pedantic mood today I might point out that the true purpose is to hurl a gob of metal really fast ;). Even in the examples I listed of firearms used as tools, they were still used for killing things. The part that I think is missing is that sometimes you -need- to kill things. The examples I gave of regular firearms use as necessary are prime examples of this. Many people today view killing as a horrid and detestable thing, without stopping to think about where the meat and poultry they bought at the local grocery store came from. I view the increasing disconnect between "civilised" people and the natural world as a very scary thing. Killing is part of nature. Pretending to be above nature strikes me as hubris of the worst kind. [/soapbox] ;)

In the case of a government confiscation of firearms, the first action of some of gun owners would be to stuff them in watertight containers and bury them in locations which would be difficult to find. There are many large national parks which would prove ideal for this, and the government has been so kind as to publish the manuals that teach our armed forces how to do this exact thing. :)

The question of whether a violent uprising would stand a chance against a modern military, while interesting, is immaterial. What do you think the public reaction would be the first time a US city was carpet-bombed, or a town attacked by cruise missiles? Historically, when uprisings or civil wars have taken place, the military has divided based on soldiers' and officers' individual beliefs. It would not be easy to throw the full weight of the US military against US citizens on US soil. The folks who enlist do so with the understanding and oath of protecting the United States and her citizens. If the military were to be directed on the citizenry, morale would shatter and desertions would reach record highs. What would concern me more is the arming up of SWAT and various elite police forces. They're trained to shoot american civilians and got their jobs knowing full-well that it may be required. Their numbers are much smaller and their armaments less powerful, though, which is a pretty substantial mitigating factor.

I don't own any firearms either, by the way, but I do support the right to do so. It's always a pleasure to have a rational discussion with someone that doesn't devolve to namecalling. Cheers :)

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[gfreeman]

Hey, guess what? You have to register cars, too. And houses. And credit cards.

Now, if I want to phone someone shouldn't THAT be private? Shouldn't I have a right for the government to have "probable cause" before they listen in?

Re:Pot-Kettle-Black

[Anarcho-Goth]

The anarchist view about gun control:

Guns are like elections. I don't believe they do any good, but I'd prefer they remain legal.

Personally, I think citizens should be allowed to own any weapon that their countries' police/military/junta is allowed to have.

But you know, maybe it is a good idea to have them registered, and to keep them out of the hands of convicted felons? (Even if I have little to zero faith in our criminal justice system.)

The problem with guns is people think they can protect themselves with them when they are more likely to shoot a friend or family member. On the other hand, I don't think it would be a bad thing if a higher percentage of the population were armed. I just wish that the liberals weren't so gun shy. If more of them had guns and were prepaired to use them I wouldn't worry about a coup, marshall law, or suspension of posse comitatus. Not that I really worry about it. One can only worry about it if one has an idea of what to do about it. No, that's not true either. Just have to deal with it if it happens.

Maybe the Canadians would help us out?
Supposidly they have a well armed militia.

Oh baby, what a place to be
In the service of the bourgeoisie
Where can my believers be
I wanna jump into the endless sea

Benefits

[phorm]

Take into account other things though, like medical benefits etc. A lot of what comes for free (or cheap) here comes at a cost elsewhere. You can't directly compare income.
br. I could move a few cities over, be making a fair bit more than now, but be paying out the ass in living expenses and thus make less. That's just between two cities, the different between countries is obviously more.

Re:Funny...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

These are Rights we dont mind losing.

I would mind very much losing the right to own guns without registration. The Canadian culture is such that they are not as afraid of big governments as we are. Of course their government is much smaller, and less corrupt. Our government has been moving slowly towards a totalitarian state, well since it was created. It takes on more and more power and places more and more restrictions on the people. At some point it will need to be overthrown. Read some of our founding father's writings. You will read the phrase "when the government becomes oppressive." To them it was foregone conclusion that it would, hence all the protections and restrictions they placed on the government. How many of those restrictions are still in place and enforced?

Their may come the day when Canada is very happy that the people of the U.S. have unregistered firearms.

Since when are we Canuckistani?

[PhYrE2k2]

"As a Canadian, I just want to assure you that we do indeed refer to ourselves as being Canuckistani"

Since when are we called Canuckistani? I've lived in Toronto for over 20 years, and Halifax for over four. I have never even heard that 'word' in common speech, news, tv, print, jokes, etc. Never once. So since when is this something we refer to ourselves as?

Maybe you heard the word 'canuck' which is pretty common, especially on the parody-news shows such as 'this hour has 22 minutes' and 'royal canadian air farce', but Canuckistani?

This man/woman does not speak for the 32 million Canadians. Apparently nobody I know (through a quick poll) has heard of it either. Avoid the generalization. 'WE' do not use that term.

-M

Re:Since when are we Canuckistani?

[issachar]

I use the term Canuck because I know my history. That and I live in Vancouver.

I don't hear Canuckistani very often though.

Re:Since when are we Canuckistani?

[quanticle]

Digging to another cell with a bayonet?

This guy is like the Canadian MacGyver...

Re:Since when are we Canuckistani?

[issachar]

Those old comics are fun. I remember seeing one of him punching out Hitler.

Re:Since when are we Canuckistani?

[quanticle]

It says on the website that this guy slugs Hitler 3 times in 1 comic...

Is there any way I can get my hands on this particular series, or is it out of print?

Re:Since when are we Canuckistani?

[issachar]

I'd assume it's out of print. I've got no idea where to get it. sorry.

Data DOES NOT have to cross the border

[jerometremblay]

The problem is that data does not have to cross the border to fall under the PATRIOT act jusridiction.

Canadian branches of US corporations can be ordered to give their data too. And THAT is the problem the governement tries to fix. It has nothing to do with "exported" data.

I agree that Canadian laws should not extend across our borders, but the reverse is true and US laws have nothing to do outside theirs.

Re:If you don't like it, don't visit here.

[Ced_Ex]

And, if memory serves, the terrorists that took down the WTC came through Canada.
Are we (the US) supposed to look the other way when it comes to Canada? It seems like we did in the past, and terrorists got through, took 4 jets, crashing 3 of them into buildings. What would you suggest?

If memory serves me correctly, Canada stuck its neck out for the US by accepting all those planes destined for US airports. How many more planes could have been filled with hijackers?

Check your facts about the hijackers.

It's never that easy...

[PhYrE2k2]

When travelling to the US and back to Canada, I've actually found many less questions going down to the US than coming back up. Coming back up they ask questions non-stop.

I don't really fit what you'd call a 'high-risk profile', so I've never had too many bad experiences. Nonetheless the only questions with a car full of mid-20 year olds was "where are you going and for how long". On the way back up the endless questions about firearms and whatnot...

This is supposed to be a fairly open border though... the entire point is that if we all check people coming in overseas (and Mexico), then they shouldn't get much trouble moving around in North America. This is how it's always worked, and better for both countries.

On the other hand I hear of people getting stopped all the time and having to unload their cars, I hear of bags being searched, I hear of people not being allowed in for their DUI chargers (It's a criminal offense in Canada).

Nonetheless, the "Wow- it's so easy to get across the Canadian border with a smile" myth I'm sure happens, but no more than anywhere else.

-M

Re:It's never that easy...

[gowen]

I wasn't trying to perpetuate a myth (I wasn't even aware of its existence). I was just regaling people with an "amusing", true anecdote. I've had other, less amusing experiences of queueing for almost an our to get through passport control at YVR, Vancouver.

Sort of...

[jsimon12]

"...Thankfully, privacy still means something up here."

Sure the Canadians may have slightly more privacy, but they still have other bad things that we luckily don't have down here in the states.

1. Hearsay evidence is admissable in a CRIMINAL trial (in the states hearsay is only admissible in a civil trial).

2. Evidence gathered without a search warrent or even probable case is addmissble in a CRIMINAL trial (in the states this is a big no no, it is tossed out period).

Nuff said for me.

Re:Sort of...

[Frostalicious]

1. Hearsay evidence is admissable in a CRIMINAL trial (in the states hearsay is only admissible in a civil trial).

2. Evidence gathered without a search warrent or even probable case is addmissble in a CRIMINAL trial (in the states this is a big no no, it is tossed out period).

incorrect.

Re:Sort of...

[jsimon12]

1. Check the "Khan Exception", it was a precident set during a sexual assualt case calling the witness to the stand would be too traumatic for the witness so they admit testimony from a 3rd party on behalf of the witness, ie hearsay.

2. Check "R. v. Silveira", "R. v. Wiley" and "R v. Plant". Also it doesn't appear they need one if there is an emergency, the case involves drugs oddly enough though they require one for explosives (per the Explosives Act).

My personal take on the situtaion is laws can be turned around in EITHER country, Canada just appears to be in some political pissing match. Probably because the Frenchies in charge of the country don't like GW Bush.

Re:Sort of...

[Frostalicious]

I'm sure you are correct, I don't really want to go through case law. I was objecting to the blanket statement that hearsay and evidence obtained illegally are allowed. In general, they are not, with some exceptions. There are also exceptions in the US. Statements against penal interest, and evidence illegally obtained, but that would have inevitably been discovered, for example.

Re:Sort of...

[jsimon12]

Hmmm, I don't belive hearsay is allowed in criminal cases in the US period. Evidence obtained without a warrant, you probably got me there, I belive there was a very recent ruling that allows the use of police dogs without a warrant, but that is an extremely recent exception and the only one I know off the top of my head.

Re:Sort of...

[Frostalicious]

Hmmm, I don't belive hearsay is allowed in criminal cases in the US period.

Here's a summary of hearsay and exceptions in the US. Similar to Canada.

OB Yes Minister

[mike2R]

Off topic, but I love this quote:

Jim Hacker: You know what they say about the average Common Market official: he has the organizing ability of the Italians, the flexibility of the Germans, and the modesty of the French. And that's topped up by the imagination of the Belgians, the generosity of the Dutch and the intelligence of the Irish.

so...

[AviLazar]

the canadian gov't (and USA companies dealing with canada) are griping because the patriot act forces these companies to give up their information....well if you don't want this to happen - don't bring it into the US borders. Once it's on US land it falls under US jurisdiction.

Re:so...

[starfishsystems]

well if you don't want this to happen - don't bring it into the US borders

Exactly. That's what's being recommended here in Canada.

Fair use of public facilities (also Nova Scotia)

[PhYrE2k2]

Nova Scotia (the Atlantic Canadian Province) is about 40 years behind the times with pretty much everything. Pictou is a small town in Nova Scotia. We're not talking about something in the middle of a big city here.

This is a matter of use of public resources and facilities. It's been the age old argument about lighting a christmas tree for the city. It excludes people and makes the many other religions feel left out. It's about being fair to all religions. Nowdays it's not a Christmas tree but a holiday tree or something along those lines... They light candles as well for the jews, and do various other things for many other major religions, without leaving out those not recognized.

This Pastor is perfectly welcome to put on his own show in a private theatre. He's welcome to invite people and preach all he wants...

At the expense of tax-payer paid facilities, it should not be biased... that doesn't represent the views of many Canadians.

-M

Leverage themselves despite their own suffering.

[PhYrE2k2]

True, but the US loves to cut off trade. In the end, they import from Canada more than the Export to Canada in terms of dollars and volume... so it ultimately hurts the US more than Canada... but Of course the US puts trying to force other countries to do things over the wellbeing and comfort of their own citizens. Funny how that works out?

As much as we are our own country, we also need to work in cooperation with our allies (pretty much everyone) and neighbours.

But it's okay- someone will come in in about 3.5 years and undo all the mistakes (so pretty much the previous 8 years).

-M

Re:hah Yeah canada is really free

[nostriluu]

You're right, and in fact the LCBO has a very good selection of liquor offered at good prices due to its consolidated buying power. So its not all bad. I do find it a bit creepy that they are tending towards the upscale in design, but I guess it makes people feel good about being boozehounds, and is a profit centre.

Of course, other Canadian provinces do allow private stores to sell liquor.

Ann Coulter -- a woman out of touch

[ansak]

Someone sent a link around at work from some website in Iceland that I can no longer locate. It was mostly a collection of mostly Ann Coulter snippets. I found it amazing that such a personage got any regular air time. Up here she'd be interviewed once by Arthur Black (not realizing that she was considered a source for light Saturday morning humour) and forgotten about. You want real insight and political commentary? Try Allan Gregg vs. Chantal Hebert!

Apolitically but mandatorily funded public media (like the CBC or the BBC -- which George Orwell wrongly feared) might improve your news landscape down there. It's not perfect either, but it's the biggest thing I've missed every time I travel in America (which gets less and less every year).

cheers...ank

number of convictions

[willCode4Beer.com]

I dunno, but the number of convictions as far as terrorism goes is exactly ZERO.

Why convict someone and give them a limited sentence when you can just call them an enemy combatant and detain them indefinitely.

Who then became Canadian.

[PhYrE2k2]

Officially, the folks who invaded were British because Canada didn't exist. Fine- Agree with that argument.

HOWEVER, it was these people who became Canadian as opposed to a 'British Colony'. So in theory the forefathers of what is no Canadian (and hence the Canadian ideals and culture) stems from those people.

-M

Re:Who then became Canadian.

[Harnish]

You're both right. The bulk of the forces that attacked Washington (against orders I might add, the British ordered them to Baltimore but due to the lack of forces protecting Washington, Ross and Cockburn agreed it was too easy of a target to pass up) were the 3rd Brigade under General Ross and Rear Admiral Cockburn. In addition to the 3rd Brigade, there was a sizable number of British Militia, primarily from Halifax, but with some 300 from Upper Canada, mostly from Kingston and York. It was the ones from Upper Canada who bear mentioning since these were mostly the men who were at the Battle of York and were ordered to withdraw. It was their homes that the were vandalised, looted, destroyed and burned while Major-General Dearborn wrote in his journal it was despicable, but he was either unwilling or unable to stop his soldiers. The York militia, as one might imagine, wanted vengence. In addition to that, there was the matter of avenging the acts at Port Dover.

What I find the most interesting about the war of 1812 was not the later stages like the burning of the white house, which has already been mentioned, was white long before being torched, but the early battles (or lack thereof) at Fort Mackinac and Fort Detriot. Both of which were seized by General Isaac Brock and Tecumseh without a shot.

Bush Quote

[katharsis83]

This part is ironic, and I saw the video clip on the Daily Show last week:

Bush (when asked about repressive regiemes like Saudi Arabia after he said he wanted to bring democracy to everywhere in the Middle East): "Well, it's not an either or proposition, you know..."

Bush (2001 - post 9/11): "You're either with us, or against us..."

Interesting stuff.

Re:hah Yeah canada is really free

[Astreja]

Manitoba's liquor stores rock, too. On New Year's Eve, in one of the larger mall outlets, there were two huge lines of people all the way to the back of the store. I was out of there in ten minutes flat. The clerks at the till (four of them, I think) were unfailingly polite and upbeat in the face of this liquor-crazed horde that had descended upon them.

And I really like the idea that there's quality control.

So what, exactly, makes a private liquor outlet superior to a publicly-owned one?

Another reason not to outsource

[mysterious_mark]

This happens all the time with outsourcing/offshoring, when you send your customer's data to another country, you give up the privacy protections afforded by your country's laws. The Canadians are blowing by sending there data to the US, now that are constutional rights are infringed, also I'd rather not have my data sent to India etc. Caveat emptor!

Magnetic

[Scrameustache]

Canada IS NOT the northern most country. That would be Greenland (Denmark).

Canada owns the North Pole. Can't go any further north than "around the north pole".

Re:Magnetic

[ifwm]

Strange. I looked and looked, but everywhere I checked said that either Denmark or more often no one "owns" the north pole.

Of course, since it's not land anyway, I'm not sure anyone could truly own it.

Do you have a source I could see?

Re:Magnetic

[DunbarTheInept]

The Arctic ocean around the north pole is international "waters", okay granted it's FROZEN waters, but it's still officially not owned by any country. (This also means that Canada does not actually border Russia.)

Re:Magnetic

[Scrameustache]

I looked and looked, but everywhere I checked said that either Denmark or more often no one "owns" the north pole.
Of course, since it's not land anyway, I'm not sure anyone could truly own it.
Do you have a source I could see?

You could ask the government of Canada.
Or CNN.
You didn't even bother to look at Wikipedia?

Re:Magnetic

[Scrameustache]

The Arctic ocean around the north pole is international "waters"

Not by Canada.

Re:Magnetic

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Satire wire doesn't usually provide a firm foundation for your point.

Re:Magnetic

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Canada does not officially own the pole, free and clear. They have merely announced a claim on the pole. Someone else has quite a number of years to dispute the claim before it becomes official. Probably Russia will do that at the last minute.

Re:Magnetic

[ifwm]

I see the problem. You're talking about the magnetic north pole (stupid me I didn't notice the header) which explains it.

Canada, apparently, owns ONE of the poles, with the other one belonging to no one.

Strange you didn't bother to make this distinction clearer. Why not say "magnetic north"?

After reading the Wikipedia entry, I was right about geographic north.

"There are in fact 770 km of ocean between the pole and Canada's northernmost point"

It goes on to say the area is disputed, by Russia and Denmark, making the point that ownership has yet to be decided.

You should amend your claim to "one of the north poles, for now".

Re:Magnetic

[iCEBaLM]

After reading the Wikipedia entry, I was right about geographic north.

"There are in fact 770 km of ocean between the pole and Canada's northernmost point"

Land yes, however from the wikipedia article:

The boundaries of Canada extend all the way to the Geographic North Pole. There is no land at this location, which is usually covered by sea ice. There are in fact 770 km of ocean between the pole and Canada's northernmost point. Nevertheless, the North Pole of the Earth may be said to be located in Canada.

Read the whole thing next time...

-- icebalm

Re:Magnetic

[bulliver]

Not quite...the North Magnetic pole indeed falls over Canadian soil but the _real_ geographic north pole sits over a huge chunk of ice that covers the Arctic Ocean 10 months of the year. Nobody owns the north pole. Does Brazil own 17% of the equator? (Note: 17% length of equator through Brazil was pulled out of my ass...)

Re:Magnetic

[Scrameustache]

Note: 17% length of equator through Brazil was pulled out of my ass...

Ouch! That must have hurt.

Re:Allow an AMERICAN to clarify...

[MightyMartian]

> If you aren't a crook or a terrorist, you've got
> nothing to be afraid of. :)

And providing you aren't Muslim, or have an Arabic name, and providing you don't use your Safeway Club card, you'll be a-okay.

Re:Canada, Land of the Jihaddie

[Run4yourlives]

Actually, not a single 9/11 terrorist entered the US through Canada.

And none were Iraqi either...

Curious ...

[Cyryathorn]

How come the American flag has 12 stripes now? Did I miss the memo?

(look up at the flag used as the topic icon for this story)

Re:Heh

[scorp1us]

The huddled masses came here looking for the american dream. You work hard, you get a head. They did not come here looking for free handouts or to have their way payed by all the other taxpayers.

If what the huddled masses want is a welfare system where those who work hard pay their way, then yeah, they can bugger off. Socialist states like Canada and Europe are a much better place for such slackers.

The lure of America and the American Dream is self-determination. Not subserviant service to a government. If that is what you want, then what you want is Amerika.

About U.S. Ignorance

[Dr. Evil]

If you can live, work, vacation, conduct business, trade and travel within one country, see the arctic, visit sunny warm beaches on both the Atlantic and the Pacific without needing a passport, you wouldn't need to concern yourself with foreign affairs or world geography.

You just wouldn't!

Re:About U.S. Ignorance

[Abcd1234]

Willful ignorance is still ignorance, and there's little excuse for intellectual laziness. Why live in this world if you don't intend to learn about it?

Re:About U.S. Ignorance

[Ced_Ex]

I believe the parent made a subtle reference to a previous article where a slashdotter mentioned that he didn't need to leave the country to experience what the world had to offer. And everyone chewed him out for suggesting that heading into an ethnic part of town was all he needed to do to experience culture.

Re:Funny...

[Run4yourlives]

Their may come the day when Canada is very happy that the people of the U.S. have unregistered firearms.

Somehow, I highly doubt that. Even so, it's a chance I'm willing to take, considering that is that the only people we've ever been invaded by are americans with their (unregistered) guns.

-1 Troll

[LPetrazickis]

It's called natural selection. Culling the weak (be it intellectual or physical) is NOT a bad thing.

You are an idiot. You don't know what "natural selection" is, your definition of "weak" is confused and vague, and you couldn't differentiate between learned and innate behaviour if it bit you in the ass.

My natural selection includes altruism.

FLQ Crisis

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we canucks get sanctimonious, let's look at our own history first. After a spate of "terrorist incidents" (the october crisis was absurdly overblown), our government declared marshall law and cancelled out all civil liberties from coast to coast. This is despite the fact all violence occured in a concentrated area. In our weakest moment we succumbed to our fears. We have no reason to feel superior.

The War Measures Act led to the arrest of 500 people without warrant. The majority of the people were artists, unionists, intellectuals and individuals who supported Quebec nationalism.

The War Measures Act was similar in intent to the Patriot Act, but the consequences were far worse. It was later repealed by a conservative government, but no one honestly believes that a new government isn't still capable of bringing it back.

Re:FLQ Crisis

[Phiu-x]

Isn't that martial law?

Re:FLQ Crisis

[ablair]

The War Measures Act was only very reluctantly used during the FLQ Crisis because there were no other 'intermediary' laws available at the time with more limited scope to handle such a crisis. Remember, at the time the new provincial government in Québec suddenly had mail bombs going off, threats, kidnappings of high-ranking officials, and the assassination of the minister of labour. This inexperienced government had no idea how large or organized a group they faced (the terrorists certainly seemed to be organized and have great reach) and had to bunker the entire cabinet down under heavy guard for fear of their lives. The atmosphere was highly charged and not only the locked-down cabinet, but the mayor of Montréal and the police in Québec all called for the invocation of the Act by the federal government before Trudeau reluctantly agreed.

And to correct your history, the War Measures Act was halted by the same Liberal government that invoked it, less than one month later (November 1970). It was replaced as soon as possible by the more reasonable Public Order Temporary Measures Act of 1970, which lasted less than a few months. While many innocent people were detained for up to a month under the War Measures Act by over-zealous police forces, none were deported for torture or jailed indefinietly without charge. This is significantly different than the situation with the Patriot Act.

Re:Overreacting

[Kurrelgyre]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Re:Funny...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

it's a chance I'm willing to take, considering that is that the only people we've ever been invaded by are americans

Should the United States turn even more towards totalitarianism how would Canada react? How would the U.S. deal with Canada after a few years of dictatorship, given the U.S.'s military superiority? When newspapers here talk about the radical Canadian atheist government and all the terrorists Canada is intentionally allowing across the border what will happen?

Canada's best defense against another invasion from the south, is the people who live there. Hopefully the U.S. will never be a country that Canada needs to fear invasion from. It is entirely possible that guns in the hands of private citizens, with no record of ownership will be the thing that keeps that from happening.

Why would we worry?

[hoppo]

Why should we worry about materials coming in from Canada? They have such foolproof border security. We've never had terrorists enter the US through Canada. Oh, wait...

Re:Why would we worry?

[AndyMouse GoHard]

When did this happen? Let me know when you can state facts rather than Faux News blurbs (tm).

Bill

Re:Why would we worry?

[Jon.Laslow]

Hey, take a look here, please: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=138168&cid =11569342

Re:Leverage themselves despite their own suffering

[Dunbal]

But it's okay- someone will come in in about 3.5 years and undo all the mistakes (so pretty much the previous 8 years).

You expect that the "Americans" will actually elect a reasonable person next time? Man, I admire your faith, brother...

The title's wrong...

[nmx]

Canadian Government Weary of Patriot act

I think the word you're looking for is wary.

International waters

[Simonetta]

A real question for the future is IF the waters around the large North American Arctic islands melt, will this new navigitable passage be international waters or Canadian territorial waters?
A global warming pattern could open a passage between Europe and Asia across northern Canada and north of Alaska. The question is could Canada regulate hazardous materials or the size of ships or collect tolls for passage between Canadian islands from these ships?
Six hundred years ago, the Arctic was warmer. The Chinese record sailing from Greenland to China across the northern coast of Russia that is today locked almost always in ice. This was from 1421 by Gavin Menzies, about Chinese explorations in the early 1400's.

Re:Allow an AMERICAN to clarify...

[DunbarTheInept]

The Patriot Act was in response to a direct attack on the US by non-state sponsored terrorism,

Yeah, because terrorism has everything to do with students going to college having a harder time getting visas, and researchers on cryptography flying planes into buildings.

Sorry, mis-formated the quotes

[MoneyT]

I was just on another forum. whoops.

Patriot act bad for business?

[Digital Pizza]

So, now foreign entities may be reluctant to contract out work to U.S. companies due to this kind of crap. Nice.

Sometimes I fantisize that the administration does something that's actually good for the economy. Then I wake up.

Isn't it funny...

[Jimmy9Toes]

Isn't it funny how a post about the Patriot Act turned into nothing but a pissing contest between neighbors?

To quote the great, and innocent, Rodney King...

"Can't we all just git along?"

Re:Isn't it funny...

[udowish]

sad but true, sad but true. I think what was the underlying issue here is, the yankees think everyone on the planet should think and act like them. As soon as there is any resistance they get all bent out of shape. Oh well, we only have to put up with them for afew more decades. Once they become totally forgien owned due to debt defaults there attitude will change. Then we can decided if we want an 11th province or not.

Re:Isn't it funny...

[Jimmy9Toes]

Thank you for exemplifying my statement.

-Jim

Re:Leverage themselves despite their own suffering

[PhYrE2k2]

Ahhh classic.

Well it doesn't matter how reasonable the next person is... that's the system. Create a mess before you leave and someone else will clean it up.

It's all relative though.

Anyone else suprised?

[redmond_herring]

I am. Honestly. I guess I underestimated the intelligence of the /. community.

I was expecting a lot of True American(tm) sentiment and an awful lot of Canadian bashing in response to some of the pro Canadian views that have been expressed so far in this thread. But I haven't seen a lot of that. It's brilliant.
[I guess it could be explained by some good modding, but I don't want to start thinking like that!]

Thanks /.ers for restoring a little bit of faith

Yes, Prime Minister quote

[gidds]

(It's about a different place and time, but I hope you can see the relevance.)

SIR HUMPHREY: Bernard, what is the purpose of our defence policy?
BERNARD WOOLLEY: To defend Britain.
SIR HUMPHREY: No, Bernard. It is to make people believe Britain is defended.
BERNARD WOOLLEY: The Russians?
SIR HUMPHREY: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it is not...

Re:Heh

[kilfarsnar]

"The lure of America and the American Dream is self-determination. Not subserviant service to a government."

Jeez, dude. What part of the country do you live in that you are so burdened by government coersion? Other than having to go to work every day, I do pretty much as I please. Hey, wait a minute. I have to go to work every day. That makes me a slave to my company. Sure, I could quit. But I'd just have to find a different master, err, employer. Or I could go into business for myself. But that requires capital, which I would again have to work for.

I have to eat three times a day, does that make me a slave to my stomach?

"You work hard, you get a head."

Thanks, but I already have a head. But seriously! If only that were true. How many millionaire construction workers do you know? Hell, people who work hard would get even less if we didn't have unions and labor laws and other such tyrannies.

Re:Canada, Land of the Jihaddie

[wk633]

To be fair, there was one attempted border crossing. The guy who was stopped in Port Angeles, on his way to blow up LAX for Y2K.

But ya, in general, foreign terrorists get into the US on visitor or student visas. A lot of people incorrectly associate the idea of 'illegal alien' with 'terrorist'. Illegal aliens are the people who do the jobs none of the citizens want to do.

Re:Heh

[scorp1us]

"I have to go to work every day. That makes me a slave to my company. "

You have the right (to which the government cannot interfere in) to contract at your discretion. You have contracted to provide your labor in return for some sum of federal reserve notes. The point is, you work completely by choice. That is why all those empolyment agreements say that your work is voluntary, not compulsary.

You also have the right, as you properly said, to work for yourself.

Your construction workers comment is just cheap. If these people had a better skill that they could and would like to offer, I am sure they would. If they want to be millionares, then they have to find a skill that is worth that.

And don't get me started about orgainzed labor...

I agree

[gandalf23atwork]

I fully agree!

This clearly explains why we've been plagued by Korean, Vietnamese, German, and Japanese suicide bombers. 'Cause we killed shit loads of their parents and grandparents and they're pissed at us and want us all dead.

-gandalf23@work

Re:Heh

[kilfarsnar]

"Your construction workers comment is just cheap. If these people had a better skill that they could and would like to offer, I am sure they would. If they want to be millionares, then they have to find a skill that is worth that."

Better skill? You owe the floor you are standing on to a construction worker. You owe modern civilization itself to construction workers. The point I was making is that people are not paid based on their work, their skills, or their value to society. They are paid based on the amount of money they can make for someone else. This is why my company pays me as little as they can. I don;t directly contribute to the bottom line.

Why does a CEO make 500% more than a teacher? Because he works 500% harder? Hardly. He gets paid that because he makes the decisions that enable the company to increase it's profits. If he does not increase company profits he will be replaced. Pro athletes are paid huge sums because their playing attracts more people to buy tickets and beer. The fact is that that CEO would have no building to sit in and the athlete no stadium to play in were it not for construction workers. But the worker gets paid squat compared with the other two, even though it is his labor that makes it all possible. Go read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich and tell me how much you think hard work and success are correlated.

The Underdog Will Prevail

[deusexcrottsma]

As a Canadian, I believe that it's aboot time for the Canadian God to deliver His people from the oppression and rapture of the American Devil, eh? I understand our country is financially dependent upon America, that we depend on America for all our amenities, and that America's technological advances are in no way derived from the ingenuity, or lack thereof, of our Canadian people. Yet I will continue to bash America because of my decided insecurity, eh?

Re:hah Yeah canada is really free

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

lets people who get sick not lose everything

Amen. Did you see the figures published the other day for U.S. bankruptcies? 50% of personal bankruptcies are the result of a medical problem. 75% of those people had medical insurance when the medical problem started. The fact that the system has become this broken is ridiculous.

Re:Quick hide the WMD Canada!

[deusexcrottsma]

"Conquering Canada is only a matter of marching." -Thomas Jefferson (marching which our country did not subsequently even bother with)

Too Cold?

[ansak]

Vancouver BC has a climate only slightly cooler than Seattle, WA.

Victoria BC is often warmer than Vancouver, though also often windier. It also thinks it's still part of Britain -- forgivable as their climate resembles that of Sussex pretty closely. If you like the west coast of Washington and Oregon, southwestern BC would be a comfy place for you.

cheers...ank

Onion Headline:

[JimmytheGeek]

"Putin Vows Zero Tolerance for Terrorists, Hostages"

Re:Allow an AMERICAN to clarify...

[jericho4.0]

Well, they didn't attack Canada did they? I'm sorry for the loss of life, but if you buy that those dasterdly terrorists were attacking you for your 'freedom', you're an idiot.

Bin Laden has been very clear about this; The attack, and AQs reason for being, is US forign policy, specifically in Saudia Arabia, which is where these folks came from, and Israel.

Re:Who cares?

[dadragon]

And here I was thinking that Canada ceases to exist east of Winnepeg. ;)

Drive by

[Gonoff]

Certainly I agree that as gun crime has dropped, other types - knife clubs physical etc. The difference is, how much more random is gun violence.
When was the last time you heard of innocents killed in a drive by punching???

The law abiding will always be a source of interest to the sociopathic. Criminals are rarely trained in the use of their weapons. I would suggest that guns should not only be licenced, but the licences should only be available to those who have been trained, have no police records and have a valid reason for carrying them. Political opinions based on pholosophies created in the 17th century and codified in the 18th century are no reason at all.

Re:Drive by

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The difference is, how much more random is gun violence. When was the last time you heard of innocents killed in a drive by punching???

First, banning guns or passing gun laws does not stop criminals from having guns. That is why Britain's gun crime went up. Passing laws does not change the behavior of criminals. Second, suppose you somehow managed to search the whole planet and remove guns from the hands of either everyone or everyone but the police and military. In the latter case, the police and military would sell guns to criminals at outrageous rates. There is overlap between cops, military, and criminals. In the first case, it would make numbers more important. Who are their more of, criminal gangs or cops? And what about that innocent child killed by a drive by shooting? Won't it have been worth it to save just that one life? Maybe, except they will have been burned alive by a drive by Molotov cocktail, or blown to pieces by a drive by pipe-bombing. Which is going to kill more innocents, do you suppose?

Political opinions based on pholosophies created in the 17th century and codified in the 18th century are no reason at all.

Those wacky philosophies were written by people who had to deal with an oppressive government. They were men of influence and knew first hand exactly what happens when people strive for power. Just because they made their observations hundreds of years ago, does not make it any less true. Power attracts the power hungry. Large, centers of power expand and try to get more power. Governments will have corruption. People will sometimes act for their own interests above that of everyone else. These are all concepts that have proven true again and again. Providing limitations and protections against these occurrences is common sense. Unregistered gun ownership is the final safeguard for when all the others fail, which they inevitably will. Your assertion that a philosophy is invalidated when it reaches a certain, unspecified, age is spurious.

The funny part is that Canada also. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

has a far more effective military than the U.S.

Neoteny, (I don't understand the linguistics behind your term, but it's as good a label as any for 'appearing harmless and friendly'), combined with lethality when necessary is a great defense mechanism. --As one friend used to laugh when in the U.S. "Don't fuck with us, or we'll come and burn down your White House. Again."

Brute military in large numbers (the U.S. way) means exactly nothing when a small team of less than ten men with advanced hardware and ninja training (the Canadian way) can erase large armies as if they weren't there. Nobody talks about this. I am breaking code.

But then the U.S. doesn't care about effective militaries. It cares about controlling its population through enslaving all the people to military service and the war support industry. It's about social control through military structure rather than actually being able to kill your enemies effectively. (As we are seeing in Iraq. What a joke. --If anybody really wanted to take out the leadership in Baghdad, it could have been done quickly, quietly and nearly invisibly with very few casualties. It's been done before. --Big armies racing in and blowing everything up and then not being able to maintain control is unbelievably stupid. --Unless your goal is to create a giant quagmire through which to funnel lots of money and fuck up your country and stay in power. Hmm.)

I'd crow and say that Canada is one of the smartest and most dangerous countries on the face of the earth, but a bunch of beer drinking hockey players would kick my ass for talking.

Don't worry, though. We're all about survival and getting along happily with our friends all over the world. We don't have any interest in conquest. That's for schoolyard bullies, which we're not.

Even though it's still mostly based on a bunch of bullshit dogma and nationalistic rhetoric, and even though our government is run by the usual corrupt suspects, I'm actually quite proud to be Canadian. It'll be interesting to see if our groundwork is strong enough to withstand the black hole of the U.S. If our shit-head PM manages to get Canada to throw in with this missile defense bullshit, as well as the insane plan to bring both Canadian and U.S. armed forces under one command, I'll be seriously considering a move to France.

Fuck Anschluss!

-FL

Re:The funny part is that Canada also. . .

[breadboy21]

Is it to cold to think in Canada this time of year? While I'm sure your ninja death squads can "erase" large armies of many sorts (plastic ones for example) you really don't have a good grasp of how current wars are fought, or even how the United States conducts the wars it engages in. Lots of countries have large armies. China, for example has far over a million troops in its armed forces. The United States, in contrast, has but a few hundred thousand. Neither of these numbers matter, however, because we have weapons of war that are far greater than general man power, and that no other country can manage. Even in raw spending numbers our superiority is fairly obvious. We spent $370.7 billion dollars last year on just the military. The runner up, China, spent $60 billion. That is just about 6 times greater in round figures which is, um, how you say in English, a lot. Where does Canada figure into this military picture, well they weigh in with a grand total of 9.8 Billion in military expenditures. That, if you're keeping score, is a whopping 2.4 percent of the U.S. budget. And what do we have to show for this amazingly disproportionate expenditure, you ask? Well we have unrivaled weapons in almost every field, the biggest and most powerful nuclear arsenal ever assembled, fleets of portable aircraft carriers that can move massive amounts of military around the globe in short periods of time, well trained special forces in every branch that can do what needs to be done, whatever that happens to be, and all sorts of other goodies in far to many areas to mention. What does Canada have? Well, according to one Canadian report I read (http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2000/2000_06_02 _Military_Eagles.html) which compared one of our military units to Canada's military, Canada's ninja death squads are not quite at that level. For example, Canada's military is largely a "collection of the uneducated" with many solders failing to finish high school and compared with U.S. officers their Canadian counterparts were "badly under-educated." 39% of our officers have graduate degrees. 6.8% of Canadian officers have the same. 40% of Canadian officers do not have even a BA, compared with 10% of U.S. officers. Perhaps all this education stuff isn't really important. Perhaps as you said it is all about giving 10 guys weapons, ninja death squad commemorative boxers, and dropping them in the middle of Baghdad, but here are a few more facts for you in direct quotes: "The Canadian Army has been rusting out for a while. While the 4th Brigade in Germany in the late 1980s was well trained and completely equipped, this was not true of the rest of the Army. Moreover, by the late 1980s, 4th Brigade's Leopard 1 tanks and M-113s did not place it among the most modern of NATO formations. Things have worsened since. The only partly modern formation that was ready to participate in battle was already under strength in 1988, and has since been brought home anyway. "Since the end of the Cold War, Canadian troops have not been trained in a modern environment, have not trained in realistic large exercises, and have not received anything to speak of in new combat equipment. They have, however, been sent in operation after operation after operation, without adequate training and support. For troops at home, they lack ammunition for training, field rations, uniforms, and everything else that would properly train soldiers for anything more than "peacekeeping" -- peacekeeping as the Federal Cabinet sees it, and not that which was the experience of those who served in Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia. Whatever success can be attributed to these operations largely exists off the expenditure of human and material capital that remains from earlier days." "In a word, Canada does not adequately train individual soldiers anymore. Therefore, it can not train sections, platoons, companies or battalions. The building blocks of combat ready formations no longer exist. The corporate memory of readiness for the operations of the 1970s and '80s is fast going, and C

Re:The funny part is that Canada also. . .

[udowish]

You don't know what your talking about. I was in the Airforce to 10 years and to be an office you MUST have a degree. Try 90% of Canadian forces officer ranks have degrees, maybe you should put down the inquirer and get some real facts. PS at maple leaf, william tell etc we always place first. So much for the "best in the world" US forces.

Re:The funny part is that Canada also. . .

[udowish]

hum, interesting. But I thought the yankee flag was made just to abuse?? I could be wrong.... PS don't like it get out...seems to work well for the yanks.

Re:The funny part is that Canada also. . .

[breadboy21]

please actually read what I wrote next time. I got my facts from a canadian think tank, 10 years ago is less than recient, congrats about the competition, if someone invades you (assuming we didn't help which we of course would) you could tell them that.

Re:The funny part is that Canada also. . .

[AtomicSpy]

"The Canadian Army has been rusting out for a while" Come on buddy - how are our dogsleds really going to rust? We have more to wory about when our command post melts in the spring.

Re:The funny part is that Canada also. . .

[breadboy21]

funny stuff, but again, thats quoting an article from a canadian thinktank (as best as I could determine, half that word may not apply)

Re:Canada, Not a country, just a big campground

[udowish]

US not a country just a violent shit hole... Nuff said

Re:Canashdot.org

[udowish]

thats funny, a yankee calling Canadians self righteous, I think the kettle said that to the pot also.....

Re:Canashdot.org

[Bam359]

Don't you mean Cashdot? (.ca!)

Re:That's great, Canada.

[udowish]

hahah, you may blame us for the "illegal" route people take to enter the US. Sure, they may have gotten threw our cracks, but they sure as shit went threw YOURS as well...idiot

Re:I'm so glad

[udowish]

so one has to, you can't look after yourself...to us your like that obnoxious uncle no one likes.

Re:I hate Anti-Americans

[udowish]

hahahaah, shitty eh, the UN must be wrong then, lets just move from the top down to 10 to 15 in the US. No wait, I want my kids to go threw metal detectors at school...and please...please can I shoot you with my pistol? hahah another yankee sounds pretty jealous to me...

Re:Who cares?

[udowish]

I think the US should become a commonwealth of Canada

Re:White House was white already

[udowish]

yeah sure, an yankee trying to set the "facts" straight... more of the pot and kettle I think..

Ha ha good one...

[gordgekko]

Canadian government which supports mandatory biometric national identity cards, attempted to create a massive database with information on every Canadian, passed anti-privacy laws after 9/11, has banking laws no less invasive then those of the U.S., blah blah blah etc. is angry about the USA PATRIOT Act.

Wake me up when they aren't hypocrites.

Re:Ha ha good one...

[udowish]

You aint to bright. Canada has one of the toughest privacey laws in the world buddy. Gett of your fat ass and to some reading before your ignorance embarrasses you in public.

Re:Ha ha good one...

[gordgekko]

You're grunting at someone who has written more words about privacy rights in Canada, and that includes for the biggest newspapers in Canada, then you've ever read.

If you think we have strong "privacey" rights, then you're the ignorant one being embarrassed in public.

Excuse me?

[Jon.Laslow]

The last time I crossed into Washington state from Vancouver, BC, it was American boarder guards I had to deal with, not Canadians. If you're all so god-damn worried about terrorists coming from here, maybe you should start looking at your own customs policies and boarders, not ours.

Re:Canada, Not a country, just a big campground

[udowish]

hahahahh nice, nice to bad your to stupid if you equate everything to incidents within the military and may I point out...it was YOUR idiot cowboy pilot who killed Canadians in Afgan...goof

Re:hah Yeah canada is really free

[AtomicSpy]

Not to mention the Beer Store.... god.. what could be better... it's like fast food beer and they usually remember what you drink :)

Re:Good Luck On That One

[Scudsucker]

Like the person feeding the crocodile, they will be eaten last.

No, they just don't breed crocs in the first place, and don't have to worry about them. At all.

The real question...

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Why aren't more of you americans worried about the patriot act?

It destroys the rights given to you by the 4th and 6th constitutional amendments, yet your courts have not overturned the law for taking away those rights.

The patriot act has already been used by US law enforcement in several ways it was never intended for, because of the loopholes it gives into your privacy. Of course the Canadian government and governments elsewhere are concerned! ... The patriot act makes it legal and simple for the USA to partake in MASSIVE corporate espionage, on a scale that makes the chinese spies look like inspector gadget!

Already, to hold a CIBC credit card here, you must accept that your personal information will be freely shared with the US government upon request.

As usual though, the ultra-protectionist bullshit laws will bite you americans back. The many companies based in the US that act as specialized centers for accounting, human resources, data management or anything else will be loosing massive amounts of business as the business gets pulled back to the side of the border where rights are not just proclaimed, but protected.

Now, you dumbasses, It is your responsibility as citizens of the US to defend the rights given to you by your constitution, you fight so hard for the imaginary right you think you have to bare arms .... why dont you put half that effort into protecting the real rights you have that the patriot act has stolen from you?

Re:The real question...

[udowish]

man, you can hear a pin drop...where'd all the yankee BS go now? Eh?

Re:Canada, Not a country, just a big campground

[AtomicSpy]

The *green* fatigues also keep the Canadian soldiers from being confused with American soldiers. Sort of the same reason why half the American Embassies/Consulates overseas recommends that American tourists say they're Canadian or tell them to where a Maple Leaf on their bag/coat.

Re:Who cares?

[AtomicSpy]

Who says Canada would have them?

Canadians against the U.S. PATRIOT Act

[wrecked]

End of the day, hope someone sees this: Right To Privacy Campaign, a website with links and documents related to the risk to privacy posed to Canadians by the U.S. PATRIOT Act.

Re:My presences was reported to police in Italy!

[rodac]

There is no such law. He asked for your passport because you wanted to pay with creditcard and he though you look like the kind of guy that might try to present him a stolen card. I have been to some 30 different countries in business and private travel and the us is the only place that routinely asks for and copies your passport. I never showed any passport or ID when staying at hotels in Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Germany, Greece, Slovenja, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Austria, Poland, Switzerland. I did show my passport once in England though.

Re:My presences was reported to police in Italy!

[rodac]

Oh, thats not entirely correct. Hotels in mainland china ALWAYS take your passport for a day or two.

Re:Canada debt? No

[lphuberdeau]

There is no deficit annually, since they solved those problems, but Canada still has a dept of well over 100 billion. Of course, multiple countries owe money to Canada too and most of the dept is actually towards the citizens via multiple social plans. But there is a debt, it's going down, but there is one.

Actually, the only debt-free province is Alberta because they exploited their petrol while prices were high. They finished paying it off a few months ago only.

Flush out your headgear!

[amightywind]

The afganistan has been re-captured by the warlords except pockets of territory near kabul, that Hamid Karzai rules. The afganistan government doesn't even rule most of the afganistan and who do you think rules those territories - wait let me guess taliban/alqaida?? You were asying something about alquida and war on terror ??

What is your news source? The New York Times? CBS? ABC? Flush out your headgear nubie! The Afghanistan war has been a resounding success. How you can maintain otherwise is beyond comprehension. Yes, there are still wild regions left in the country where Taliban hide in caves. They are mopped up regularly. Afghanistan was basically overrun in 2 months by 20 airforce spotters. The US has never encountered as inept an enemy as the Taliban. IT has never had such a successful exercise in nation building.

Re:Heh

[scorp1us]

You confuse the issue. Your company pays you based on your skill. It takes no skill to get a mimimum wage job. Just show up and do waht you are told. Everything asked of you is pretty basic. There are a lot of people that can do that though, and you are incompetition with them.

Next, look at me. I went to school for 4 years, got an advanced degree. I just seperated myself from 98% of all other job seekers. Next, with some experience, I now have a skill that is desired, and people are willing to pay quality money for. I remain in competition with those with the same degree and expereince.

Your company pays you as little as they can to be cost competitive. If they paid yu the same as a CEO, they'd have to charge more for whatever service or product they sell. They would lose out to competition. You contribute directly to the bottom line! How? The more efficient you are the more work you do in less time, meaning less labor expense. If you can do the work of 2 people for the price of one, as long as you are cheaper than two people, the company is saving money. You can compete and get a higher salary in your own job market by proving you are worth the expense.

Lets take a look at a paralell job market. People who have clearences like Secret and TS get paid at least $15,000 more than those who do not. And that is on a skill-for-skill experience-for-experience level. These people do not contribute more tot he bottom line, but they are a limited resource.

One day (maybe today) you will learn that employees are subject to the exact same market conditions as the products they make.

So if you are a contruction worker and want to be paid more, you have to make yourself a limited resource. This is done by specializing in something. Expanding foam instuation, or radiant heating, etc. Usually you can just pick a new technology and adopt that.

This is the reason for a certifcation industry. If you have all the desired certs, you can ask for more money than the guy with no certs or only one.

The reason that your construction workers are not monetarily appreciated is because anyone with very little training can pick up a hammer and saw. Hell, you don't even need to measure to build a house (true it does make it a lot easier) but basic geometery is all that one needs.

So when I said "work hard, get ahead" it did not mean it literally - to only use muscles. It implied a level of working smart. You can work hard to move a mountain, but if you're not smart about it, it will never move.

It is like this: work hard: brute force sort numbers using an O(n^2) algorithm. Yeah it is really easy to code. But if you work smart you can code a O(N log2 N) algorithm that will outperform the easy to code n^2 algorithm. You can eaither work hard (smart) before you start working on the task, or you can work hard after going to task. Such is the difference between a $60k and a $90k programmer. It is about where you move the coefficients. For example. In SQL select queries, it is vastly mroe efficient to have the most restrictive selected set evaluated first. This elimates a lot of databrocessing that will be thrown away at a later stage.

So we have a situation where one must not just work hard, one must work smart as well. I thought that was obvious.

Dude, I was just like making that all up, eh.

[Fantastic Lad]

What I was saying about those super soldiers? That was just hot air, eh. I was, like, totally making that up.

Pass me a Blue and another piece of backbacon, eh. It's just us totally harmless Canadians up here.

-FL

Understanding Plain English

[thelizman]

Who said anything about 9/11 or Iraq? Do you even read comments before replying to them?

Re:Proud

[udowish]

I think the benefit is the other way round buddy. History and reality prove that.

You did... in a round about way

[Run4yourlives]

Considering that most Islamic terrorists have tried entering visa vie Canada

I simply pointed out that in the most recent terrorist attack on American soil, not a single terrorist entered the states through Canada.

So tell me, which terrorists are you refering too, exactly?

Putting a 2/3 rule into effect (to constitute "most") and considering that I just provided 19 names that would work against your theory, feel free to provide the names of 38 terrorists that have entered the US through Canada.

Otherwise, go watch some more Ann Coulter and leave factual discussions to more rational individuals.

Background on privacy report

[jschwart37]

A while ago I read a report by the BC government, "Privacy and the USA Patriot Act". It's interesting to me how differently Canada seems to think about these things compared to the US.

Here are a few excerpts.

Privacy and the USA Patriot Act - Implications for British Columbia Public Sector Outsourcing

The essence of liberty in a democratic society is the right of individuals to autonomy--to be free from state interference. The right to privacy has several components, including the right (with only limited and clearly justified exceptions) to control access to and the use of information about individuals. Although
privacy is essential to individual autonomy, it is not just an individual right. A sphere of privacy enables us to fulfill our roles as community members and is
ultimately essential to the health of our democracy.
[...]

More broadly, excessive surveillance in the name of national security and public safety can threaten the freedoms on which every successful democracy depends. Awareness of widespread surveillance makes people nervous about speaking their minds, engaging in political activities, or doing anything that might arouse ill-founded or vague suspicion. Excessive surveillance herds people toward conformity and discourages the diversity of ideas and beliefs that are indispensable to the flourishing of our communities.
[...]

Due in part to its cultural and constitutional history, the US has followed a different route from Canada and Europe in the privacy field. No independent body was established to enforce the US federal Privacy Act and few US states have enacted laws regulating government use of personal information. Regarding commercial activities, the US has opted for sector-specific laws with an emphasis on self-regulation or enforcement by private litigation, rather than through independent oversight. There is ongoing tension between the US and Europe regarding the adequacy of US privacy laws. Canada's privacy laws are much more in tune with Europe's.
[...]

The balance between privacy and Canada's security and law enforcement interests is dynamic. In the ongoing quest for the right balance, it is vital that the broadening of the state's ability to take steps to satisfy our legitimate security needs does not blur into activities that are in reality the ordinary enforcement of laws. The need to deal with the threat of terrorism may appear much more immediate and easier to understand than the need to maintain the basic civil rights to which we have become accustomed. However, our measures for dealing with terrorism must be carefully guided to address real threats, instead of our fears, to ensure that we do not unnecessarily lose the safeguards of our liberties in law or in practice.
[...]

We cannot ignore the fact that US courts have upheld subpoenas ordering corporations to disclose records located outside the US, even where a foreign law prohibits the disclosure.
[...]

We do not exclude the possibility that policy or procedural safeguards exist in respect of FISA applications for disclosure of records located outside the US. In the absence of evidence of such safeguards, however, it is prudent to assume that US authorities are unfettered in their ability to seek such an order, that they may do so in circumstances that are not consistent with Canadian law and policy, and that the FIS Court might issue a FISA order for records located in Canada.
[...]

Recommendation 4
All public bodies should ensure that they commit, for the duration of all relevant contracts, the financial and other resources necessary to actively and diligently monitor contract performance, punish any breaches, and detect and defend against actual or potential disclosure of personal information to a foreign court
or other foreign authority.
[...]

Recommendation 10
The government of British Columbia should:
(a) undertake a comprehensive and independent audit of data mining efforts by all public bodies;
(b) use the a

Re:Funny...

[conteXXt]

ok but dont forget something....

Canadians are quite heavily armed. Lots of rifles up here.

In other words, you answer questions not asked

[thelizman]

*sigh*

You're a troll. You answered a question not asked. Kindly go away now.

Re:Funny...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Canadians are quite heavily armed. Lots of rifles up here.

I do not doubt that Canada is a well armed populace that could provide quite a bit of resistance. They are probably the second best chance of defeating the U.S. without blowing up the world, should it come to that. Canada's advantages are much the same as those of the U.S. citizen. Canada is close to the U.S. and citizens could actually reach valid targets. U.S. troops may balk at attacking people with whom they have empathy, many see little cultural difference between themselves and Canadians. Canadians have good quality long rifles and are trained in their use. All of these are reasons why U.S. citizens are a good defense against an oppressive government, and apply to some degree to Canada as well.