What about Canada?

Canada is such an interesting case because it lies in North America but has so many characteristics that we think of as European: committed to the welfare state and social security, pacific, multilateralist, respectful of international law. Could Canada, like Britain, aspire to a bridging role between Europe and the US?

Debate - Page 3/5

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Dear Joe in New York City,
I don't think we in America need to worry about any direct invasion from Canada. The US has roughly 10 times the population of Canada, and a military that is second to none on the planet. I think it's much more likely that Canada will continue with its unofficial policy of stealthily corrupting the US through lax drug laws and other similar measures. If we could put as many Border Patrol agents on the US-Canada border as are stationed at the US-Mexico border, it might deter the flow of illegal drugs coming in from Canada.

Here is some related news regarding Canada.....<b> Canadians find tax shelter on doorstep </b>
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
For all those Americans who, disgusted by the results of last November's presidential election, are threatening to move to Canada, here is an activity to occupy them as they make the great trek north:
They can wave at all the Canadians moving south.
Though most of the attention of late has been focused on Americans planning to defect, the fact is that hundreds of thousands of Canadians spend much of the year in the United States. There are so many of them that there's a term for those indulging in the southward migration -- "snowbirds." Not surprisingly, the movement has its own advocacy group (the Canadian Snowbird Association), which has its own Web site (www.snowbirds.org).
There's also a book.
Idle perusal of the shelves of a Victoria bookstore on a recent weekend getaway turned up "The Border Guide: A Canadian's Guide to Living, Working and Investing in the United States."
"The Border Guide" is published by Self-Counsel Press, a fittingly cross-border publishing house with offices in Bellingham, Vancouver, B.C., and Toronto.
It was written by Robert Keats, himself fittingly cross-border: dual citizenship and certification as a financial planner in both countries.
Keats, whose financial planning business is based in Scottsdale, Ariz., says there are two prime motivations for Canadians to move to the United States. One, not surprisingly, is weather. "They've had enough of snow and ice," he says.
The other is taxes. "The U.S., believe it or not, can be a tax haven for Canadians," Keats says. That's not just because it's a tax haven Canadians can drive to. Because of treaties in place between the two countries, the United States can actually offer a lower income tax rate for Canadians than some better-known havens such as the Grand Caymans.
Canadians, he notes, face higher marginal income-tax rates than Americans, have few opportunities for tax-free income such as bonds and don't get the same level of deductions -- no home mortgage interest write-off, for example. (Those who plan to move from the United States to Canada are in for a shock when the tax bill comes, he says.)
Not that all states are considered equal. Florida, having no income tax, is considered tax-friendly to Canadians; not surprisingly, taxes combined with weather make Florida a favorite landing place for snowbirds.
Washington, also with no income tax and with a sizable contingent of Canadians here, is in the same category. So is Arizona, which does have an income tax but also grants a credit for taxes paid in Canada. California, on the other hand, is not considered tax friendly to Canadians, Keats says.
Relocating is not simply a matter of packing the suitcases, however, which Keats discovered when he moved from Vancouver to Arizona. That was a prime motivator for writing the book, which delves into the intricacies of currency exchange, pensions, taxes, medical care -- and immigration.
One of the biggest questions Keats deals with in his practice is how Canadians can stay in the United States longer than the six months allowed under visitor's status, without the hassle and delays of applying for a green card (immigrant or lawful permanent resident, as Keats explains).
In fact there used to be such a thing as a retiree's visa, but it was phased out in the 1970s, Keats writes. Such a visa would allow Canadians to live year-round -- but not work -- in the United States.
Keats says there was a move in Congress to reinstate the retiree's visa, but the departure of a congressman interested in the idea and 9/11 intervened. "The whole focus of immigration changed," he says."
But Keats is an advocate of restoring the retiree's visa. Not being allowed to work is "exactly what (snowbirds) want, because they're retired." All those Canadians want is to be allowed to live year-round in the United States and spend the money they've accumulated in their working career. "It would be a huge job creator for the U.S., particularly in the Sun Belt states."
There's likely to be growing interest in just such a visa; Canada faces the same demographic bulge in the retiree and near-retiree age cohort that the United States is experiencing. The Canadian dollar is clawing its way back in terms of value vs. the Yankee dollar.
And whatever you may believe about global warming, February in Winnipeg or Mississauga is not going to approximate February in Bradenton or Tempe any time soon.

ccc, USA/Canada

I am an American living in Canada. It is more european in nature, especially in Ontario. The west is more like the USA but it is still a nation of it's own. It has a lot to offer but it does not. It has drawbacks in the area of the disabled and elderly. Canada is a nation for the young.
It systems of elections and govt is vastly different from ours as are the attitudes of it's people towards the govt versuses the usa. while we in the usa know we can change or make new laws, Canadians gripe about the laws but do little to actuate change.
It is reluctant to use the vast space it has and builds upwards. They also are behind in areas of energy conservation and recycling. But they are ahead of the US in how they educate people in how to save.
The disabled no matter how bad are pushed to work in the USA no matter how sever but not so in Canada. All nations have thier good and bad.
But simply put the USA does best in emergencies and disasters. Canada has a long way to go in that area.

Addam, West Virginia, United States

This is more of a response about America than Canada's role. I just read too many responses from people in America who I found to be so overwhelmingly ignorant that I could not keep quiet.
What is sad is that over 200 years after the inception of the United States of America we are still debating the same fundemental question our forefathers debated, which is whether the power of the government should be in Federal or State hands. This question also relates to the question of how much power our government should have. I believe that people have the right to live regardless of how much money they earn. Poor people who have cancer should have access to the same treatments as does Bill Gates. Money or the lack of it should not matter when it comes to saving a life. The government should adopt policies like universal healthcare. My father paid six hundred dollars a month to cover our family of three. The other six hundred a month was paid by his employer. That's twelve hundred dollars a month to insure three people. If there was universal healthcare, sure we would be taxed more, but you believers in "big business" and "business cares" would see that in my fathers case if there was universal healthcare there would six hundred more dollars a month my father's employer could pay him each month (Since business cares so much and all), and of course six hundred dollars less each month since he would not have to pay for health insurance. Sure taxes would go up, but would they go up twelve hundred dollars a month? No. Not even close. But think of this. What is a leading cause as to why Car Insurance is so high, because if you get in a wreck, your Car Insurance company can be and usually is sued to pay medical damages. If medical treatment was already covered under a universal healthcare plan, Car Insurance premiums would drop because the Car Insurance companies would only have to cover the cost of insuring the car. AMAZING!! I cannot comprehend how someone could defend private healthcare and be against more liberal policies. The money that it would save America would be considerable. You'd pay more taxes, but you'd pay less in premiums, thus saving you money and allowing you to do silly things like actually chose the doctor you want to see, and other needless things like allow your doctor to chose what medications he thinks you need, instead of the Insurance Company making these decisions.
I read on the first page about how poor people are too lazy to work, you can tell that the people who believe this are Republicans, and probably think Reagan was a great President. Truth is he wasn't, just so you know. It's funny how we use the terms Conservative and Liberal. If you add up the amount of debt added to the National Debt by Reagan, Bush the 1st, and George W. Bush, you would see that these Presidents alone have added more than 50% of our national debt, yet all three claim to be conservative. Clinton, who was a liberal, ran a government with a balanced budget and a huge surplus. The only thing Conservative about the three mentioned presidents of the Republican party is their stance on social issues. They claim big government is bad and that it shouldn't intrude in your lives, but yet that make social policies that place government where it shouldn't be. The only thing that makes a liberal a Liberal is that they are for doing weird things like regulating business, because believe it or not business's main and only purpose is not paying higher wages, but to make a profit. That is it. Its purpose is to make a profit, at any and all costs. Thus the need to regulate business to ensure that it doesn't do things like, work people 12 hour days, or hire children, or pay people a substandard wage, or establish a system like that in the mining camps during the late 1800's and early 1900's. Whether you believe it or not, liberalism will win the day, because it has already prevailed in the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is prospering at a higher rate than much of the United States. Together we as people are stronger, as individuals we are weak. Remeber that. As far as the people living outside of the United States who spent their time reading my "under-educated" or "higly-eduated but at the same time rich" countrymens' posts, I apologize. You see in this country we do not know what it is like to live under a Hitler, or under the dominance of Soviet Russia. We do not understand what genocide is because we have not seen it first hand. At best the only thing in this country that we can understand is racism and poverty, because that we unfortunately had and still do have. So we cannot grasp why your countries would have taken such a different road. You realized after the devastation wraught by WWII that together you were stronger, and that because someone was poor did not make them "dirty" or "lazy" it simply meant that they were poor and that since they were human they deserved to live a decent life. The people who believe Canada is wrong for its policies and that Europe is "weak" and feel at the same time that the United States will "win in the end" are the same people that are unfortunately in the White House. Truth be told if you add up the GDP of all the European Union Countries you have an entity that already rivals that of the United States economy wise and an entity that has a vastly higher population. You see most Americans have no idea that our status as lone superpower is almost over, and that soon we will be forced to listen to others wishes and actually negotiate on issues instead of ruling with a "my way or no way" approach. It is that day I long for because it is my hopes that the rest of the world will begin to bring America into step and begin to move it forward again on societal issues. So to the people from other countries don't look down on America because there is roughly 49% of us who are like you and that pay attention to the rest of the world, and are not easily frightened by fear-monger's like Bush and Cheney. I love my country for many reasons, but this current administration and the current path we are on give me fewer reasons to defend it and more reason to point out exactly what is wrong with it. I live in West Virginia, I have seen what years and years of Conservative policies can bring. I live in a State that contends with Mississippi to be the poorest state in America. Here, it doesn't matter who you vote for, Republican or Democrat, you get a Conservative agenda, you get de-regulation of business, you get the continued support for the businesses raping the land while putting nothing into the State. I see what Conservatives are all about on a daily basis when I drive around the area I live. I laughed when I heard President Bush's speech saying that he "didn't know what people were talking about when they said West Virginia's economy was struggling" he said he felt that West Virginia's economy was "was strong and getting stronger." Tell that to the people who live in the Mountains with dirt floors.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

The following has nothing necessarily to do with the question of the debate as far as Canada's role and place in the world. I just thought it was interesting....
ALANIS MORISSETTE BECOMES U.S. CITIZEN.
LOS ANGELES - Canadian Alanis Morissette is now an American citizen.
The 30-year-old singer was among some 4,500 people who took the citizenship oath during a ceremony last week at the Los Angeles Convention Center. Morissette isn‚t turning her back on Canada ˜ she‚s maintaining dual citizenship.
„I will never renounce my Canadian citizenship,‰ Morissette said in a statement Wednesday. „I consider myself a Canadian-American.
„There was a turning point during the ceremony where I felt connected to this country in a way that I didn‚t quite expect,‰ she said. „America has been really great to me and I have felt welcomed since the day I came here.‰
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6986872/

dwayne, USA

It is my opinion Canadians are to future oriented to enjoy the present moment. This whole retirment thing has gotten out of hand. We have all been hynotized to believe unless we spend all our younger years preparing for retirement we are out of step with cultural norms. No doubt retirement planning is very important. The idea is that your working years are a drugery and you are release from this at retirement. Retirement has become an idol. I long for a simpler life. The economic structure necessitates car ownership in almost all places. We are expected to fund our childrens education, pay a mortgage various insurances etc. etc. Out of this we are still expected to fully fund a Champaign retirement. All this stuff from one job...from an employer that is barely able to operate with a margin themselves. This is an overly materialistic society that expects to much from others and ourselves. It has become a cult like fetish. Looking at the newpapers and listening to conversations....you always hear talk about retirement. To me it is like spending all your life opreparing to die.
The sad part of this is that many of us have worked hard and payed into the system and still told we aren't working enough to concerned about living in the present. Come retirement age I plan to live in a warmer climate where the cost of living is lower and the things of North American Society don't seperate us. In fact I have spent several years contemplating leaving North America all together. To me there is no life or purpose here. At least I'll return to the U.S. where I can find a niche of kindred folks. The longer hours for less along with escalating demands of society have made me think enough is enough. I have to live loife on my terms to be useful

Ray Vickery, Canada

Millie Trayer objected somewhat vigorously tp what she perceived to be spelling errors in my previous posting. Actually, as she probably knows, they are typing errors, combined with a failure to proof-read before pushing buttons, and some difficulty with the word-processing package with which this discussion is carried on.
You should note, however, that Millie Trayer's posting made no points whatever in the discusson, but rather was limited to vituperation. This is hardly helpful, especially to her own cause.

George A., Texas, USA

We suppose to comment about: ŒWhat about Canada‰ but I regret to say that Canada of today is a shadow of Mulroney‚s (sorry if I misspelled) Canada, and is not much to say about them more that of Mexico or any tiny country of Central or South America, they deal themselves into darkness, and insignificance.
But what a time to be alive, and above all to have the privilege to live in a country like USA. I do believe that God had a plan for this great country, and the plan was to save the world and so far the USA did not disappoint God, and perform the „Duty‰ with great success. Do not think that USA has finished the job, just first few assignments: defeating colonialism, nazism, fascism, and communism. There is a long way to go in defeating despotism, terrorism, and liberalism.
Many people already think that USA is on the last leg of their world leadership. I remember some twenty years ago when people said that this country is finished that Japan is the next world leading power. I was concerned a little but never lost faith in this great country. Japan fights a ten years depression, and the USA is back with vengeance claiming world leadership, which never lost. Get used with the only super power, USA, and with all the responsibilities coming with this unique role.
After last presidential election, I have to admit that I was again a little bit concerned about the direction of this country, and sad that some fifty million Americans voted for a man like Kerry. But I know now that is nothing to worry about, because with a man like „W‰ and some sixty millions Americans right behind him, this country remains strong and on the „course‰, because we are Americans.
And for all you USA haters stay cool, tighten your belts, because we are going to take you for a ride for a good few years to come, something you have never seen before.
I congratulate Phil Karasick for his comments (views). Phil you are a Great American.

Ray Vickery, Canada

I found Michael Remler‚s posting most enlightening. He is, of course, attempting humour, as his points parallel mine in an earlier posting, but one must still take his utterances at face value. He first declares that Canadians are too likely to view themselves as I important. I presume he means collectively. He is right, we often to have this view. It is similar to the view of Ruthenians, Bulgarians, Scots, indigenous Amazonians, and, yes, Iraqis. We all think we are important. And that the lives of our people are important. We reject the view that the lives of Americans and their alter egos, the Israelis, are sacred while the rest of us are disposable.
It is certainly true that America does not, in general, take Canada seriously. Occasionally˜for example, when they note that we are able to provide health care for all of our citizens, for a bit more than half the percentage of the GNP that is used in America, we can be a bit of a threat. But such threats are dealt with by the „noble lie‰ and we are forgotten again.
A chap in Seattle that I have some exchanges with˜a man who is basically on the side of the angels, being a leftist politically and a liberal religiously, says that „Canadian politics are like table dancers˜amusing and harmless.‰ I think this is about as good as we get from Americans.
I have trouble with his use of the term „quasi-moderate‰. I think that‚s like being „quasi-pregnant‰.
Mr. Remler‚s statement that Canadians view themselves as different from Americans is quite valid. I cannot, however, see why this upsets him.
After all, when a Canadian politician announced a few years ago that he believed that humans and dinosaurs co-existed (as they do in Barney and similar cartoons) he simply ceased to be a national figure overnight. In the United States, I‚m not certain that you could achieve national office unless you reject the scientific data on geologic time. This seems a difference.
On a recent poll, over seventeen per cent of Americans stated that the expect the world to end in their lifetime. While many Canadians retain their religious roots, and some even take eschatological concerns seriously, few would try to pin down a date. Being literate, we note that Mathew 25 warns against such attempts. In Vancouver, the closest large city to where I live, half of the people put „none‰ next to religion in the 2001 census. The evidence is quite clear: America and Canada are very different religiously, and getting more different all the time.
In another poll, over 40 per cent of Americans answered „yes‰ when asked if the husband should be the ruler of the family. In Canada, a mere 20 per cent still live in such dark times. And ten years ago, the percentage in America was lower than it is now, while that in Canada was higher than it is now. Here also, we are very different, and growing more different all the time.
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms virtually guarantees gay and lesbians the right to marry, and few Canadians are too interested in this. (The polls show that even the minority opposed to such marriages are not so opposed that they would alter their voting pattern.
We have signed on to Kyoto, to the landmine treaty, to the International Crriminal Court, to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and to countless other international ventures designed to help bring about an era of peace and prosperity to the world. In short: we are good international citizens and the United States is a rogue state.
On could go on, but dinner is waiting.

Mike, London

To George A:
I don't think the USA defeated fascism. On reading your posting I would say it has incubated it.
And as for colonialism- need I state the obvious?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Ray Vickery in Canada wrote: "We reject the view that the lives of Americans and their alter egos, the Israelis, are sacred while the rest of us are disposable."
And I in America reject the view that the lives of Arab terrorists and their dictator-loving terrorist supporters (the so-called "Palestinians" -- actually Jordanians and Egyptians) are somehow "sacred" while the lives of Israelis are disposable. Israelis are the creators of the only liberal Western-oriented democracy in the entire Middle East. Theirs is the only state in the region that guarantees in law the right of women to vote, the right of people of different religions to worship their religion peacefully, the right of people of different religions to be full-fledged citizens with all the priveleges that accompany that right, the right of the People to peacefully change their government through elections. The Israelis are the only people in virtually the entire ME who share, honor and respect all those values that we in the West hold sacred. Therefore I consider that their lives ARE sacred. And I consider that the lives of Muslim fanatics who plant bombs on school buses, slaughter teenagers in pizza parlours and crash civilian airplanes into civilian office buildings ARE disposable.
Ray Vickery in Canada wrote: "We have signed on to Kyoto, to the landmine treaty, to the International Criminal Court, to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and to countless other international ventures designed to help bring about an era of peace and prosperity to the world. In short: we are good international citizens and the United States is a rogue state." Your country has signed onto idiotic and mindless legislation because Canada is desperate to be "loved" and is incapable of formulating its own policies or views because it has no backbone. Therefore, Canada's foreign policies are whatever it thinks the rest of the world "wants" Canada's policies to be. In short: you are smug little "sheeple" who actually, seriously think that "being liked" qualifies as a "foreign policy" and that the world somehow "respects" you as so-called "good international citizens" when in reality Canada does not count for much of anything on the international stage. The United States is a nation of Individuals who possess sufficient Backbone and Free Will to publicly tell "the rest of the world" to take a hike, if the policies that "the rest of the world" are trying to Impose upon us are contrary to our national interests. Kindly stay on your side of the 49th Parallel, please.

Emerys, Canada

Canada is in a tough spot. It is obvious that the next generation of citizens in our powerful southern neighbour are not the relatively cool, maybe self centered but at least not constantly angry, insecure and agressive boomers that they used to be. Instead we have there is a growing constituency which laps up hate radio and O'Reilly style jingoism, misinformed Coultier rants about how great McCarthyism was and how its a liberal conspiracy that it had been a reactionary movement(of course this makes Eisenhower a liberal since he said McCarthy had no decency, -he definately would be considered a lib by neocon standards what with his critique of the military industrial complex). So for those of us who north of the border who didn't get brainwashed with the neofundamentalism and xenophobic jingoism, what are we to do to try to get a pendulum shift back towards the Ol' USA that the world used to know and love. Well, our current leadership choices are totally sad- the weakling and the traitor, so hopefully Canadians will start thinking about how we can implement one of our two best options altho not currently on the agenda: 1) Getting us out of NAFTA and back to the GATTs which atleast let us retaliate against American trade hypochrisy, and building on the obvious nationalist feeling in the country right now to get us some of our independence and sovereignty back-making the US less reliant on using us as a resource pit to drain for their imperial adventures. 2) If we really want to give up our sovereignty and become increasingly dependent on the US which seems to be the will, not of the majority of Canadians but of our political, business, and media elites then lets start speaking with some confidence and negotiate a way to get a voice in the political decisions made in the US which if we remain a client state impact us as well. I for one would consider letting Canada join the US if we got a vote proportionate to our population letting us pull America hard blue and away from the current degeneration into fundie-imperialism. If Candians fail to work toward either of these two goals then we deserve to be dissed by these angry American jingos.

Ray Vickery, Canada

I found Phil Karasick's recent posting fascinating and enlightening. Note the total unwillingness to face the humanity of those who disagree˜they are either "fanatics...who deserve to die", "smug little 'sheeple'", "not count[ing] for much of anything on the international stage," or. like the Palestinians, simply not existing.
Yet this seems the predominant view in the world's only superpower. Gives one pause, it do.

Frank Coster, Holland, Europe

Canada is like America, without the paranoia.
Canada is like America, without the rough edges.
Americans act Now and Think later,
Canadians first Think, then act.
They're both Great, more similar than Holland & Belgium even !

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

text: I found Ray Vickery's recent postings fascinating and enlightening. Note the total unwillingness to face realities that contradict what he wishes to believe is "Truth", the desperate determination on Mr. Vickery's part to turn Lies into "truth" (claiming that the US dropped the Bomb on Japan for reasons other than forcing an end to the war, claiming that Japan "was seeking to surrender" when in Fact it was not).
Also, please note the attempts on Mr. Vickery's part to minimize the bloody actions of dictators such as Saddam Hussein, as well as Mr. Vickery's attempts to try to claim that the US was somehow "responsible" for Saddam's own actions (claiming, for instance, that Saddam's bloodiest atrocites were committed during Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings which the US encouraged, while totally ignoring the previous slaughter of Kurds and Shi'ites in 1988 -- 2 years BEFORE the first Gulf War had even begun).
Also, please note Mr. Vickery's praise for the tyrant Saddam Hussein, claiming that Saddam "was establishing the modern secular education system", as though the Iraqi people actually "wanted" that more than they wanted their freedom. The Iraqi people clearly DON'T want what Mr. Vickery thinks they "should" want (a supposedly 'benevolent' dictatorship that "takes good care of them" in exchange for the Iraqi people surrendering their political rights). What the Iraqi people do want is Freedom. They indicated this preference quite recently, quite loudly and quite clearly when roughly 8 million Iraqis defied insurgent threats and turned out to vote in their first democratic elections in decades.
Mr. Vickery's comments are indicative of Canadians' general lack of interest in Freedom, as well as Canadians' general (and Mr. Vickery's personal) fondness for dictatorships as long as those dictatorships supposedly "do good works". Perhaps Mr. Vickery will next be praising Hitler for "having solved unemployment" and praising Mussolini for "having made the trains run on time".
Gives one pause, it do.

Ray Vickery, Canada

I'd like to comment to Alice that she was discouraged too easily. Don't let the rudeness of some of the ˜paraticularly American˜folks in this discussion persuade you that they actually know very much. I don't think this discussion has any degree of intellectual rigour. Certainly an undergraduate seminar leader at any serious university would be beating his/her head against the wall by now.
Your opinion is as good as anyone's and certainly better than some.
I'll get back to your submission and give it some serious thought and reply in due course. Goddess willing.

John Norman, USA

Just what is the point of Canada, anyway? does it have the right to exist? Founded in original sin by dispossessing the native peoples, craven in its attitude towards Islamo-fascism, crypto-socialist, split three-ways between indigenous peoples, Quebecers and Anglo-Canadians one can only pray and hope for the rapid disappearance of this ridiculous construction, with Quebec being split between a quasi-French nation, an independent First-Nations and an Anglo-Canada both of which will be usefully absorbed and annexed by the US.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

But, of course, it's 'cheaper' than the U.S. health-care system.....
CANADIANS FACE LONG WAITS FOR HEALTH CARE
TORONTO -- A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."
The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.
Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.
"It's like somebody's telling you that you can buy this car, and you've paid for the car, but you can't have it right now," said Jane Pelton. Rather than leave daughter Emily in pain and a knee brace, the Ottawa family opted to pay $3,300 for arthroscopic surgery at a private clinic in Vancouver, with no help from the government.
"Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's just not there," said Pelton.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/

Michel Bastian, France

To John Norman:
> Just what is the point of Canada, anyway? does it have the right to exist? Founded in original sin by dispossessing the native peoples
You should be talking!
> craven in its attitude towards Islamo-fascism, crypto-socialist
ROTFLMAO! You forgot the aliens .... and the white mice .... and the little pink elephants.
> split three-ways between indigenous peoples, Quebecers and Anglo-Canadians one can only pray and hope for the rapid disappearance of this ridiculous construction, with Quebec being split between a quasi-French nation
Sure, the Quebecois are all french. God, this is priceless.
> an independent First-Nations and an Anglo-Canada both of which will be usefully absorbed and annexed by the US.
If I were a canadian, I´d make pretty sure to make friends with Europe right now. Those illuminates south of the border might actually try to do what John is proposing. Wouldn´t put it past the Bush administration. He´d probably justify an invasion with the "oppression of the canadian population by their corrupt, decadent and amoral leadership", the clear and present danger posed by canadian WMD (radioactive ballistic snowballs), proven ties to the well-known canadian branch of Al Quaida (as evidenced by irrefutable sattelite evidence of arab terrorist training camps in Nunavut .... in winter) and a vital american security interest to have direct overland access to the newly reopened oil fields in Alaska. However, knowing the Pentagon, they´d probably equip the troops with desert gear (just to use up all the stocks from the Iraq war), so I think the risk is actually minimal :-).

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Wow, Phil, all you neo-con americans definitely have a knack for alienating your former friends and allies. "Anti-American socialist in Soviet Canuckistan", is it? Well, if the Canadians weren´t anti-american before, they sure will be now, and I can´t say I blame them." Well, Michel, if you had spent as much time living in Canada as I have, you'd understand that Canadians have always been anti-American to a certain extent. The intensity of it waxes and wanes, but it's always been there and is still there. It's a constant, and it's a 'given'. Canadians are forever making smarmy, smug, self-satisified, self-congratulating comments to themselves about how supposedly superior Canada is in comparison to the US (tactfully ignoring the thousands of Canadians who emigrate to the US every year). Sometimes we actually get annoyed enough to be bothered responding and referring to them as "anti-American socialists in Soviet Canuckistan". Usually we just ignore them, just as we usually ignore Canada in general, which makes them even crazier because it makes it obvious to them that we don 't care if they hate us or not. We're benevolently and good-naturedly ignorant about Canada, while Canadians are malevolently well-informed about the U.S. The day that we in America become magnificently well-informed about Canada will probably be the day that U.S.-Canada relations plunge even deeper into the toilet (they're already circling the bowl), because we'll know (and dislike) enough about them to be a whole lot less benevolently-minded.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote:
(a) "If I were a Canadian, I´d make pretty sure to make friends with Europe right now. "
(b) Those illuminates south of the border might actually try to do what John is proposing. Wouldn´t put it past the Bush administration.
(c) He´d probably justify an invasion with the "oppression of the Canadian population by their corrupt, decadent and amoral leadership"...
(d) the clear and present danger posed by Canadian WMD (radioactive ballistic snowballs)....
(e) proven ties to the well-known Canadian branch of Al Quaida (as evidenced by irrefutable sattelite evidence of Arab terrorist training camps in Nunavut .... in winter)
(f) and a vital American security interest to have direct overland access to the newly reopened oil fields in Alaska.
(g) However, knowing the Pentagon, they´d probably equip the troops with desert gear (just to use up all the stocks from the Iraq war), so I think the risk is actually minimal :-)."A few thoughts:
(a) Canadians have always considered themselves to be friends with Europe, more akin to Europeans than Americans, more civilized, educated, cultured, etc. Their enthusiasm for all things European has often led Canadians to boldly propose expanding trade with Europe in order to reduce Canada's economic supposed dependence on the U.S. market. Unfortunately the Canadians sometimes, in my opinion, have a tendency to forget that the Europeans have generally been much more protectionist, more protective of their markets and jobs. Americans might be more annoying but we're still a much more open marketplace to Canada.
(b) Naaaah, there's no need for much concern on that. The U.S. would be making a huge mistake to "invade" Canada. For one thing, there's no earthly reason to, since we can basically buy what we need or want from them, and Canada in turn can buy into the U.S. market as well. And for another thing: why would we want to raise our own taxes to bail out the Canadians' social programs?
(c) Why Michel, I'm impressed. You've been reading the mission statement of the Western Canada Concept Party. "Oppression of the Canadian population by their corrupt, decadent and amoral leadership"? Well-spoken, Michel, well-spoken. "Corrupt"... as in, the Liberal Party steers $100 million of the taxpayers' monies to Liberal-friendly advertising firms in the East, then shuts down a Parliamentary investigation into the scandal. Yup, got "corrupt" and "amoral" covered. "Decadent".... as in, in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver BC, it's easier to buy heroin than milk, and children waiting for buses to go home from school have to step over crack pipes and discarded needles and try to ignore prostitutes soliciting openly in broad daylight in front of bus stops used by kids. Yup, got "decadent" covered. Check.
(d) Actually it's those Canadian mooses bearing kegs of deadly high-octane Kokonee Beer that you have to watch out for. Man, those things are killers.
(e) Funny you should mention "Canada" and "al-Qaida" in the same sentence, since we caught Ahmed Ressam (al-Qaeda terrorist) in the act of coming from Victoria, BC to Washington State in a car packed with explosives, intending to bomb the L.A. airport in 2000.
(f) Not needed, the Canadians are charitably offering to build a natural-gas pipeline from BC to the U.S.
(g) Yup, probably. Did it before, too. During World War II the Pentagon in its infinite wisdom took a US Army division that had spent months trying for desert warfare and sent them to the Aleutian Islands to fight the Japanese. We won anyway, though.

Michael Remler, USA

I am flattered that Mr Vickery has responded to my note and thank him for taking my comments seriously despite my attempt at humor.
He is offended that I noted Canada's relative lack of importance. It is no disrespect simply a reflection of the fact that, for and better and I am sure from his point of view for worse, Washington relates to a vast array of global power consideratins and Canada is objectively small on that scale. I believe Canadians like it that way.
I am not upset that Canadians see themselves as different from Americans just I don't believe the facts support that view (see Coster). Canada is demographically 3,000 miles by 75 miles and it is therefore quite natural that the Maratines resemble Maine far more than Alberta. Vancouver resembles Seattle far more that Quebec.
I have been to Canada many times over the past 50 years and always feel quite at home. I have noticed no significant differences in knowledge, politeness or other human characteristic where I do notice significant cultural differences in the other countries I have visited. We even have those disturbing and inappropriate references to Israel on this side of the border.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Sure, the Quebecois are all French. God, this is priceless." Well, no, the Quebecois aren't all French, there's a smattering of immigrants there from other places. They tend to attract a lot of hostility from the native-born Quebecois, though, because they don't all speak perfect French yet and because they don't all blindly support Quebec separation from Canada. After the last Quebec secession referendum (which failed), the pro-secession premier of Quebec angrily lashed out at the immigrant community and laid the blame for the referendum's failure squarely, specifically and publicly on them.

Michel Bastian wrote: "If I were a Canadian, I´d make pretty sure to make friends with Europe right now." Oh, Canadians have been friends with and admirers of Europe for some time. Every so often, Canadians throw a hissy-fit about the U.S. and convince themselves they'd be better off strengthening their trade relationships with Europe and shifting trade away from the U.S. It happens about once a decade. They keep forgetting that the Europeans tend to be more protectionist, more interested in protecting their own markets and jobs than the nasty awful Amurkans.

Michel Bastian wrote: "Those illuminates south of the border might actually try to do what John is proposing. Wouldn´t put it past the Bush administration." Nahhhh, that's just more paranoia creeping in. There's no earthly reason for us to invade Canada. The Canadians are already happy to sell us what we wish to buy, generally. And besides which, if we took over Canada, we'd have to assume responsibility for financing all those outrageously expensive Canuck social programs, and we really aren't interested in raising our taxes to pay for it.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "He´d probably justify an invasion with the 'oppression of the Canadian population by their (1) corrupt, (2) decadent and (3) amoral leadership' "..... My goodness, Michel, you've been listening to the campaign platform speeches of the Reform/Canadian Alliance/Progressive Conservative/Western Canada Concept Parties, haven't you?
Let's see:
(a) The regime of the former Liberal PM of Canada, Jean Chretien, funneled, oh, about $100 million of taxpayer dollars to advertising firms that were well-connected to the Liberal Party, then shut down a Parliamentary inquiry into the matter. Yup, got the CORRUPT part covered.
(b) & (c) The Canadian Immigration Minister, Judy Sgro (a holdover from the regime of the former Liberal PM of Canada, Jean Chretien) defended the government's policy of admitting foreign exotic dancers to work in Canada, saying the strip club business is "a strong industry" with "lots of customers." For three days, Sgro faced Opposition questions about her chief of staff's involvement in a Romanian stripper's visa troubles and in a controversial program that sees foreign exotic dancers getting special work visas. Ms. Sgro also had trouble explaining why she let a party campaign-worker hack -- a pole-dancer -- into Canada through a special intervention by her or her staff, as well as an Indian deportee on the run from the department who delivered pizza and hung out at the minister's election headquarters.
Tell me, Michel: would this cover the DECADENT part, the AMORAL part, or both??

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "....proven ties to the well-known Canadian branch of Al-Qaida (as evidenced by irrefutable sattelite evidence of Arab terrorist training camps in Nunavut .... in winter)". If you had a clue how frighteningly accurate that last statement of yours actually was, perhaps you would be red-faced with consternation instead of stupidly smirking. Perhaps I should remind you of how an Al-Qaida terror cell was discovered in a sleazy low-rent Vancouver, B.C. hotel in 1999. And how Ahmed Ressam, an Al-Qaida-trained terrorist and member of that cell, was arrested while trying to cross from B.C. into Washington State in a car packed with explosives. The plan was for him to cross into the U.S. by ferryboat (less stringently checked than land crossings) and commit a terror-bombing in Seattle or L.A. It was pure luck that a border guard became suspicious.

Michel Bastian wrote: "....and a vital American security interest to have direct overland access to the newly reopened oil fields in Alaska." Thanks, but we don't need it. The Canadians are planning on building a natural-gas pipeline from the Canadian Far North to the U.S. border.
Michel Bastian wrote: "However, knowing the Pentagon, they´d probably equip the troops with desert gear (just to use up all the stocks from the Iraq war)...". Yup, probably. Wouldn't be the first time. In 1942 the US Army took a freshly-trained Desert Fighting division and sent them into sub-zero combat against the Japanese in the Aleutian Islands, without adequate cold-weather gear. But they won anyway.
Michel Bastian wrote: "...so I think the risk is actually minimal :-)." Yup, it is.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
you got me at a disadvantage here, since I haven´t lived in Canada, like you have. However, there are a few things I do know:
> "Sure, the Quebecois are all French. God, this is priceless." Well, no, the Quebecois aren't all French, there's a smattering of immigrants there from other places.
Actually, from what I hear even the non-immigrant québecois always emphasize they are not french. When I last visited Montréal (admittedly a long time ago, in 1988, IIRC) they were very friendly, but they made it quite clear they considered themselves québecois, i.e. french-speaking canadians, not a "lost département" of France. Telling a québecois he´s french is a bit like telling a mexican he´s spanish. Hence my (sarcastic) comment.
> They tend to attract a lot of hostility from the native-born Quebecois, though, because they don't all speak perfect French yet
The québecois don´t, either. They speak a kind of evolved 17th century french. They can speak modern french with a slight accent, of course, like the mexicans can speak spanish or the brazilians portuguese, but if they don´t want a frenchman to understand what they´re saying, he won´t. Québecois has actually evolved into a more or less distinct language over time. An american cajun from Louisiana will probably understand genuine québecois better than I can.
> ....and because they don't all blindly support Quebec separation from Canada. After the last Quebec secession referendum (which failed), the pro-secession premier of Quebec angrily lashed out at the immigrant community and laid the blame for the referendum's failure squarely, specifically and publicly on them.
I haven´t experienced the québecois as being particularly hostile to immigrants. On the contrary, those québecois I know have always been open-minded, friendly people. Especially the younger generation living in the bigger towns (i.e. Montreal and Quebec City) have always struck me as rather progressive. Not a lot of xenophobia there, not more at any rate than in the rest of Canada. They do have a kind of "québecois identity", though, that´s true. It´s probably a reaction to the fact that they have to compete with the english-speaking canadians all the time. Though from what I see in the media I gather they´re not trying to "secede" any more.
> They keep forgetting that the Europeans tend to be more protectionist, more interested in protecting their own markets and jobs than the nasty awful Amurkans.
Protectionism isn´t an issue in canadian/european trade relations. There have been numerous trade and competition agreements between the EU and Canada, and most of them are running smoothly. No protectionist measures on either side that I know of.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Michel Bastian wrote: "He´d probably justify an invasion with the 'oppression of the Canadian population by their (1) corrupt, (2) decadent and (3) amoral leadership' "..... My goodness, Michel, you've been listening to the campaign platform speeches of the Reform/Canadian Alliance/Progressive Conservative/Western Canada Concept Parties, haven't you?
No. I´m not familiar with canadian politics, which is why I won´t comment extensively (just a little bit, for fun ;-)). I´ll leave the exhaustive commenting to the canadians on this board.

> Let's see:
(a) The regime of the former Liberal PM of Canada, Jean Chretien, funneled, oh, about $100 million of taxpayer dollars to advertising firms that were well-connected to the Liberal Party, then shut down a Parliamentary inquiry into the matter. Yup, got the CORRUPT part covered.
Don´t know about Chrétien, but to be fair, if you mention canadian corruption, you shouldn´t forget about corruption in your own government. Enron ..... Halliburton.... shall I go on? Same goes for the Vancouver drug problem you´re alledging: you´ll see worse things in any american city (haven´t visited Seattle yet, but I´ve seen New Orleans, Houston, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and San Diego). Drug problem? Clean up your own before you start criticising other people.
> (b) & (c) The Canadian Immigration Minister, Judy Sgro (a holdover from the regime of the former Liberal PM of Canada, Jean Chretien) defended the government's policy of admitting foreign exotic dancers to work in Canada, saying the strip club business is "a strong industry" with "lots of customers." For three days, Sgro faced Opposition questions about her chief of staff's involvement in a Romanian stripper's visa troubles and in a controversial program that sees foreign exotic dancers getting special work visas. Ms. Sgro also had trouble explaining why she let a party campaign-worker hack -- a pole-dancer -- into Canada through a special intervention by her or her staff, as well as an Indian deportee on the run from the department who delivered pizza and hung out at the minister's election headquarters.
Tell me, Michel: would this cover the DECADENT part, the AMORAL part, or both??
None of the above, actually. Again, I´m not sure about Ms. Sgro´s position, statements or her actual reasons for those statements, but even from what you´re posting, I can see that her crime is probably that she tried to pull those people out of a legal twilight zone so as to not worsen the problem. Like I said, though, I don´t have first hand knowledge on this, so I´ll let the canadians on this board respond.

Michael Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Michel Bastian wrote: "....proven ties to the well-known Canadian branch of Al-Qaida (as evidenced by irrefutable sattelite evidence of Arab terrorist training camps in Nunavut .... in winter)". If you had a clue how frighteningly accurate that last statement of yours actually was, perhaps you would be red-faced with consternation instead of stupidly smirking.
I wasn´t smirking. I was laughing my head off, and yes, I was red in the face, but not from consternation.
> Perhaps I should remind you of how an Al-Qaida terror cell was discovered in a sleazy low-rent Vancouver, B.C. hotel in 1999. And how Ahmed Ressam, an Al-Qaida-trained terrorist and member of that cell, was arrested while trying to cross from B.C. into Washington State in a car packed with explosives. The plan was for him to cross into the U.S. by ferryboat (less stringently checked than land crossings) and commit a terror-bombing in Seattle or L.A. It was pure luck that a border guard became suspicious.
Perhaps I should remind you that the 9/11 pilots were trained in Florida. That doesn´t make the US a "terrorist harbouring state", or does it?

Norm, USA

As a former Montrealer, I feel obliged to add to Phil's comment regarding Ahmed Ressam. As far as I understand, the initial criminal Al-Qaida conspiracy occurred in Montreal, and the Vancouver hideout was used to manufacture the explosives. Ressam was a Francophone Algerian, posing as a political refugee, collecting $550 Canadian per month in welfare, until his visa was denied. He then resorted to thievery and forgery as he evaded deportation.
Quebec's special powers in controlling their own immigration policies favour Francophone candidates, many of whom come from former French areas of influence in the Middle East (Algeria, Syria, Morocco, Lebanon, etc.). Prior to 9/11, Many believed that Quebec was passing these applicants through without much scrutiny so as to quickly swamp the diminishing and harassed population of native Anglophones with Francophone immigrants. The Quebec government hoped the Francophone immigrants would vote for separation (but they did not). The Ressam case seems to be a coupling of this Quebec policy with a flawed Canadian federal policy regarding political refugees, and the failure of the authorities to arrest and deport the non-compliant. I would hope the present policy is more rigorous, and more are deported.
Even so, I'm guessing that proponents of this aggressive immigration policy must now realize their role in inadvertently admitting this Islamo-fascist element into our midsts, though publically they posture with independiste anti-immigrant rhetoric. Wiretaps and later testimony reveal that one of Ressam's fellow conspirators broached the subject of exploding a fuel truck in a predominantly Jewish area of Montreal. (Islamo-fascism is a term coined by US AM radio talkshow host, Michael Savage)
I'm not sure what John Norman had in mind when he accused Canada of being "craven in its attitude towards Islamo-fascism." It would help to be more specific. Certainly members of past Quebec governments have been brazen, not craven, in their support for former-FLQ terrorists. The perpetrators of the 1970 October crisis spent no more than 11 years in prison for kidnapping and murder, and some are currently active in politics. Can you imagine Sirhan Sirhan released on parole in 1979 for the murder of Robert Kennedy, and becoming a culture hero in America?

For those of you not old enough to remember the days when Quebec terrorists conspired, bombed, kidnapped, and murdered in the name of building a French worker's paradise, when Montreal led North America in armed bank robberies, and when civil rights were suspended throughout Canada, I offer the following link for your perusal:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=October+Crisis&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1
Would Canadians today have enough confidence in their democratic institutions, leaders, and law enforcement to watch parliament suspend civil liberties, quickly secure the peace, then restore civil liberties? If not, what's changed?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mi chel Bastian wrote: "...Don´t know about Chrétien, but to be fair, if you mention Canadian corruption, you shouldn´t forget about corruption in your own government. Enron ..... Halliburton.... shall I go on?".
Well, Michel, you're more than welcome to go on, but I think you'll be making yourself look rather foolish. To begin with, there is utterly no comparison between the corruption that was committed in Canada by the ruling Liberal Party, and the unfortunate events that occurred at Enron. To begin with, there is literally no connection whatsoever between Enron and any city, state or federal government in the U.S. whatsoever. Enron was not connected in any way, shape or form with 'government'. It was a totally private-sector utility company. Therefore it stands to reason that the problems at Enron were not 'corruption in our own government' at all since once again Enron had nothing to do with any branch of government. Moreover, there is a world of difference between the private sector and the acts of a government. Most Americans understand, quite rightly, that private-sector money is not the same as public-sector monies. If embezzlement, swindling, etc. occurs at a private-sector company, that's unfortunate and certainly deserves prosecution and punishment (which is what is now happening to the Enron swindlers). But it certainly does not betray a "public" trust; the monies lost are those of private-sector businesses, investors and employees, and frankly they put their money down and took their chances. It's unfortunate that Enron went out of business and cost employees their jobs and investors millions of dollars, but they're in the private sector and knew (or certainly should have known) that there were no "guarantees" of returns for investorsor stockholders, no "guarantees" of lifetime employment for employees. It's completely acceptable to allow private-sector businesses to fail and go out of business, and it's completely acceptable to allow individuals to lose their jobs. What's not acceptable is for a government to commit acts of corruption that cost millions of dollars belonging to Taxpayers who never agreed to take that risk when their monies were involuntarily taken from them via Taxation and forcibly "invested" against their will into keeping a corrupt government in power. Again, private capital is not the same as public capital.
With regard to your comment concerning Hilliburton, once again, Halliburton is not an "official" or "unofficial" arm of the U.S. government. Nor, to my knowledge, has Halliburton been convicted or even charged with any criminal offenses whatsoever. If you want to accuse Halliburton of 'corruption", you might be advised to get a lawyer; the company has a stellar reputation as a consulting company and might take offense.
Michel Bastian wrote: "...the same goes for the Vancouver drug problem you´re alleging: you´ll see worse things in any American city (haven´t visited Seattle yet, but I´ve seen New Orleans, Houston, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and San Diego). Drug problem? Clean up your own before you start criticising other people."
Well, actually NO, you won't see anything worse in any American city. It's far, far worse in Canada. That's why Vancouver is now pretty much the heroin capitol of North America, and why it's easier to get heroin in some neighborhoods of Vancouver than it is to buy milk.

Jill, UK

I grew up in Canada and even though I was not born there and do not live there now I consider myself Canadian and I will never give up my Canadian citizenship.
I am horrified to read so many Americans insulting Canada and Canadians. I thought that the two peoples pretty much got along and had a live and let live attitude. It seems I am wrong - there is a deep well of bitterness and hatred there. Why? The crime of having social services, health care [which is excellent] and being relatively pacifist [but check Canada's record in WWI and WW2] ??
A French ex-military person I met recently told me Canadians are the world's best anti-mine personnel. Canadian military is based on very high-tech training and in intelligence. With a population of only 30 million in such a huge area, they chose to specialise not to waste personnel and hardware.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> To begin with, there is utterly no comparison between >the corruption that was committed in Canada by the >ruling Liberal Party, and the unfortunate events that >occurred at Enron. To begin with, there is literally no >connection whatsoever between Enron and any city, state >or federal government in the U.S. whatsoever. Enron was >not connected in any way, shape or form with >'government'. It was a totally private-sector utility >company. Therefore it stands to reason that the problems >at Enron were not 'corruption in our own government' at >all since once again Enron had nothing to do with any >branch of government.
Hmmm, I wouldn´t be so sure about that. Consider the following (taken from a BBC News article and an Associated Press article):

Enron provided millions of dollars to finance Mr Bush's 2000 election campaign.
Mr Bush was a personal friend of Mr Lay (former Enron CEO). Lay gave the White House recommendations for appointment to a federal energy commission. Mr. Bush eventually appointed two of the people on Enron's list.
Lay gave the list of names to Clay Johnson, Bush's personnel director, White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said. Among the eight or so names were Pat Wood, now chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Nora Brownell, a member of the commission.
Bush appointed Wood replacing Curt Hebert.
Hebert said in an interview that Lay "has asked me to take certain positions but I've had those conversations with Ken Lay for a long time. And have disagreed with him for a long time."
It has also emerged that Mr Lay called two US cabinet officers before the company filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
And the US Treasury Department has said one of its officials was asked to help Enron by company president Lawrence Whalley.
Enron executives also met Vice President Dick Cheney and his energy task force several times to discuss the administration's energy plan.
I might add that Cheney has personally intervened in favour of Enron in collecting debt abroad.
No ties to the white house. Of course.
> With regard to your comment concerning Hilliburton, once again, Halliburton is not an "official" or "unofficial" arm of the U.S. government. Nor, to my knowledge, has Halliburton been convicted or even charged with any criminal offenses whatsoever. If you want to accuse Halliburton of 'corruption", you might be advised to get a lawyer; the company has a stellar reputation as a consulting company and might take offense.
To quote Dubbyah´s favorite phrase: bring ´em on. Stellar reputation indeed. Cf.: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12052 And of course, the Bush administration (read: Cheney and Rumsfeld) had nothing to do with letting them off easy on that one. Sure.

> Well, actually NO, you won't see anything worse in any American city. It's far, far worse in Canada. That's why Vancouver is now pretty much the heroin capitol of North America, and why it's easier to get heroin in some neighborhoods of Vancouver than it is to buy milk.
I presume you have proof of that? Oh, and concerning drug problems in american cities, have a look at this site: http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/nationtrends.html
No drug problems in the US, eh, Phil?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Jill in the UK wrote: "I grew up in Canada and even though I was not born there and do not live there now I consider myself Canadian and I will never give up my Canadian citizenship."
|
I lived in Canada for a number of years during the late 1970s and early-to-mid 1980s. My late mother was Canadian, my wife is Canadian and has no plans to give up her Canadian citizenship, and our sons are dual U.S.-Canadian citizens.
|
Jill in the UK wrote: "I thought that the two peoples pretty much got along and had a live and let live attitude. It seems I am wrong - there is a deep well of bitterness and hatred there. Why? The crime of having social services, health care [which is excellent] and being relatively pacifist [but check Canada's record in WWI and WW2]??"
|
Generally, Americans and Canadians do indeed pretty much get along and do indeed have a live-and-let-live attitude. Americans in general (other than those living in states bordering Canada) are generally oblivious to Canada and generally have no interest in Canadian social services, Canadian health care or Canadian pacifism.
|
When Americans do have opinions on those topics, the opinions run the gamut, ranging from praising Canadian "progressiveness", to opining that Americans don't care much about social services and have relatively little interest in paying for them, and that many Americans would sooner rise up in another armed revolution rather than accept Socialism or a government takeover of health care.
|
Jill in the UK wrote: "I am horrified to read so many Americans insulting Canada and Canadians."
|
Very good. Now, if and when you can be just as horrified to read so many Canadians insulting America and Americans, then perhaps we will be getting somewhere. I have had to put up with listening to Canadians trash America, its people and its political leaders for 25+ years. Frankly I am fed up with what I perceive as the typically Canadian attitude that criticism of the U.S. is "natural", "normal", "routine", "deserved" or "understandable" while any criticism of Canada is viewed as "outrageous interference in Canadian internal affairs".

Sue, USA

To Jill, UK:
I have always liked and trusted Canadians ( I grew up in a border state), but my sense is that Canada is more hostile to the USA than the other way around. Perhaps Canadians are apt to feel disrepected and ignored by US apathy. Nonetheless, Canadians can be enormously self-righteous. They benefit economically from being our neighbor, yet they constantly slam our "heartless" capitalist system. That's hypocrisy.

John, USA/Canada

I have to protest this 'welfare state' criticism becuase too many people seem ill-informed about it.
Canada maintains a welfare state becuase there is greater recognition in Canada that those who are born into wealth bare advantages over those who did not.
For instance, I am a very lazy person who is nearing thirty years old and I have never had a full-time job. How might you ask, did I afford to live in the Upper West Side, Manhattan - one of the wealthiest areas in America ? How did I afford 3 Ivy league degrees (which are about as likely to get me into a top business as any form nepotism) ?
Becuase I was born into wealth, not necessarily becuase I worked harder than my poorer counterpart who by now, would be paying off endless student loans if they were in my position.
AMERICA IS A CLASSIST SOCIETY WHERE THE RICH GUYS WIN BECAUSE THERE PARENTS ARE RICH.
You right-wingers keep assuming that everyone is starting off on the same level when some folks are given a huge boost in the beggining of life becuase there parents can afford prep school or they inherited some money. ALMOST EVERYONE I KNOW IN THE ELITE CIRCLES OF NYC COME FROM MONEY (ACCEPT FOR SOME IMMIGRANTS WHO USUALLY COME FROM MIDDLE-CLASS OR UPPER-CLASS FROM THEIR COUNTRY).

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Enron provided millions of dollars to finance Mr Bush's 2000 election campaign."
|
Yup. So what? Good for them. Enron has a perfect right to contribute to political campaigns and to participate in the political process in the U.S. If you have a problem with that -- Too Bad. So, what's your point?
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Mr Bush was a personal friend of Mr Lay (former Enron CEO)."
|
OMG, are you saying that a President who formerly worked in the energy sector MIGHT ACTUALLY BE A PERSONAL FRIEND of SOMEONE ELSE WHO WORKS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR?!??! Stop the presses, we have a scandal.. NOT! *derisive snort*
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Lay gave the White House recommendations for appointment to a federal energy commission. Mr. Bush eventually appointed two of the people on Enron's list. Lay gave the list of names to Clay Johnson, Bush's personnel director, White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said. Among the eight or so names were Pat Wood, now chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Nora Brownell, a member of the commission."
|
What, you mean that the White House actually "asked" the energy sector for advice on selecting seasoned, well-qualified people with deep knowledge and decades of experience in the energy sector to be candidates for a commission dealing with the energy sector?
|
And, holy cow, he even decided that some of them were well-qualified enough to be hired? How DARE he.
|
*GASP* I'm shocked, shocked, I say.... How could Bush even 'think' of doing such a thing? Didn't he know that he's "supposed" to hire people with utterly no experience in the field they're supposed to be overseeing and regulating, so that they can go hog-wild in their ignorance and impose disastrous, idiotic policies that devastate the industry??
|
Oh, wait... Bush couldn't do that... he's not a liberal Democrat.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "It has also emerged that Mr Lay called two US cabinet officers before the company filed for bankruptcy in 2001. And the US Treasury Department has said one of its officials was asked to help Enron by company president Lawrence Whalley."
|
Heavens to Betsy, you mean that those scamps at Enron exercised their Constitutional right to contact their political representatives? How dare they. Don't they "know" they're "supposed" to "just shut up and pay millions and millions of dollars in taxes"?
|
Michel Bastian wrote:"No ties to the White House. Of course." That's right. That's absolutely correct. Almost everyone who works in government came from the private sector and ultimately returns to the private sector, unless the only reason they're working in government is because they're too incompetent to get a REAL job in the private sector. There's nothing at all unusual about Bush, as a former oilman himself, having personal friendships with other people in that industry. And nothing 'improper' about it, either. Nor is there anything unusual about government officials meeting and consulting with their private-sector counterparts. A Scretary of Transportation who didn't sit down for lunch regularly with the heads of Ford, GM and DaimlerChrysler is a Secretary who scares me, because if he doesn't even know the key players in the industry, he can't possibly know what the hell he's doing or supposed to be accomplishing.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

previously wrote: "Nor, to my knowledge, has Halliburton been convicted or even charged with any criminal offenses whatsoever. If you want to accuse Halliburton of 'corruption", you might be advised to get a lawyer; the company has a stellar reputation as a consulting company and might take offense."
|
Michel Bastian responded: "To quote Dubbyah´s favorite phrase: bring ´em on. Stellar reputation indeed."
|
Let's see what a few non-European folks have to say about Halliburton, shall we?
|
THESE ARE THE NASTY CAPITALISTS DENMOCRATS WANT TO 'PROTECT' US FROM...
|
41 Halliburton Employees Killed in Iraq
|
[From NewsMax]Forty-one employees of the embattled energy services company Halliburton have been killed in Iraq and Kuwait since the company became the U.S.'s primary contractor in the Iraq rebuilding effort last year.
|
Halliburton's sacrifice in human terms is higher, for instance, than the entire British army's - which has the second largest military presence in Iraq. Twenty-seven British soldiers have killed since the occupation began on May 1, 2003.
|
Despite suffering a staggering death toll, Hallburton's contribution to the war effort has been derided by the Democratic-media complex as war profiteering. When a Halliburton employee is killed, kidnapped or injured in Iraq, it seldom generates any news coverage.
|
On the other hand, when a reporter dies covering the war, the media is awash in reports praising his courage and dedication....
|
I had no idea the death toll was so high. Well, of course I didn't, it doesn't get any news coverage, because that wouldn't fit the Party Line.
|
Well, people of Halliburton and our other contractors, Americans thank you. I thank you. You are heroes, and the Michael Moore crowd isn't worthy to clean your boots.
|
http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/000843.html

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Another commentary on Halliburton that you won't find in any liberal or European media.........
|
DON'T BLAME HALLIBURTON
|
By Max Boot
|
Los Angeles Times, April 22, 2004
|
Halliburton surely got lambasted last week by John Kerry. "This war brings billions of dollars to big companies, either to those that manufacture weapons or those who reconstruct Iraq, like Halliburton and its sister companies," he thundered. "And from here it becomes clear who benefits from the outbreak of wars and bloodshed: war traders and vampires who administer world politics from behind the curtain."
|
Oops, sorry. That wasn't John Kerry. That was Osama bin Laden, or at least someone claiming to be him on an audiotape. When the rhetorical lines blur between the leader of the Democratic Party and the leader of Al Qaeda, maybe it's time for the Democrats to reconsider their demonization of the Houston-based corporation. Especially when the bodies of three more Halliburton employees have been found, bringing to 33 the number killed in Iraq.
|
The critique of Halliburton comes in two parts. First, the company is said to have unfairly acquired its contracts in Iraq through political influence. Second, it's said to have unfairly taken advantage of those contracts to engage in war profiteering.
|
The first charge is particularly seductive because Halliburton's former No. 1 man is now the country's No. 2, and there is a long history of companies getting government work through political influence. Kellogg Brown & Root, now a Halliburton subsidiary known as KBR, had close ties with Lyndon Johnson, which helped it to snare lucrative contracts during the Vietnam War. Surely, cynics reason, similar machinations were behind Halliburton establishing itself in Iraq.
|
Actually, Halliburton is in Iraq primarily because in 2001 it won a competitive bidding process to administer the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, a multiyear contract to supply the Army. Halliburton has also gotten some no-bid jobs in Iraq, just as it did in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and for the same reason: Not a lot of other firms have similar expertise in supplying the U.S. military, and with a war on there's no time to stage a lengthy bidding process.
|
Although Halliburton's work in the 1990s was praised by Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" panel, its current contracts have led to charges that it's mulcting the taxpayer. Maybe so, but the proof is hardly in. The biggest controversies have involved alleged overcharging by subcontractors for food and fuel. In both cases, Halliburton argues that its expenses were justified, and some Army officials back it up. It has, however, suspended billing for $176 million in meals until this dispute is resolved. A criminal investigation of the fuel flap is underway.
|
Halliburton certainly does not appear to be making a fortune under its deal with the government. It's guaranteed only a 1% profit on most of its Iraq work plus performance bonuses of 2% to 3% -- not a whole lot considering the risks it runs.
|
By focusing on Halliburton, critics ignore the real scandal, which is how inefficient our procurement bureaucracy is. Remember those stories from the 1980s about the Pentagon buying $640 toilet seats and $435 hammers? Well, things haven't changed a lot. The same gold-plated approach is being taken to administer aid to Iraq.
|
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, when he was in charge of northern Iraq, was told by the Army Corps of Engineers that it would cost $15 million to $23 million to rehabilitate a single cement plant. He managed to get it done for just $800,000 by paying local firms.
|
Why was the original estimate so high? Not because the Army or its contractors are corrupt. It's because they are obligated to build everything to extremely demanding standards and to fill out reams of paperwork justifying every nickel they spend.
|
This system is bad enough for normal military needs; it's even worse in the case of Iraq. We desperately need to create jobs so young Iraqi men will have something better to do with their time than shooting coalition soldiers. The best way to do that would be to toss the procurement process out the window. If the result is that buildings in Iraq aren't up to the latest in U.S. standards, or a few million dollars goes astray, so what? That's a small price to pay for getting the country back on its feet.
|
U.S. military commanders have done some informal contracting, but their discretionary funds are limited. Big projects have to go through the bureaucracy -- which means they have to be administered by giant firms like Halliburton that have legions of lawyers and accountants to decipher the impenetrable thickets of procurement regulations.
|
Instead of blaming Halliburton, critics would be better off trying to change the system. But that's not terribly glamorous. It's much more fun to beat up Texas plutocrats.

http://www.cfr.org/pub6970/max_boot/dont_blame_halliburton.php

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Enron provided millions of dollars to finance Mr Bush's 2000 election campaign."
|
What a coincidence; just FIVE (5) wealthy donors - billionaire uber-liberal George Soros, Progressive Insurance Group chairman Peter Lewis, Hollywood mogul Stephen Bing, and California investors Herbert and Marion Sandler ˜ spent more than $78 million in total in their obsessive drive to buy the Presidency for John Kerry. That was more than the $75 million the federal government gave Bush and Sen. John Kerry to conduct their entire general election campaigns. And one man alone, Soros, spent about $27 million of that $78 million in his unsuccessful jihad to defeat George W. Bush.
|
Perhaps they should start their own little, personal Political Action Committee (PAC) - Billionaire Uber-Liberals Who Want To Buy Elections For Kerry.
|
Come to think of it, maybe they already did.
|
And here I thought we were "supposed" to believe that Bush was supposedly "bought and paid for by the rich".
|
Of course, liberals and leftists have always hated and envied the wealthy. But I guess they grant special "absolution" to wealthy individuals who "atone" for their being wealthy and successful by pouring money into left-wing causes.
|
Funny, I don't see you screaming about the scandal of a tiny cabal of 5 wealthy "king-makers" trying to buy a Presidency for their liberal candidate. I wonder why.

F.langelier, EnGelLand

oh golly i have to get this work done and I accidentaly ?? landed on this site !
Quickly...if Blair gets voted in again he doesnt desserve it and has mislead the british people in a big way !
Trouble is...the Brits watch their life go by on their TV screen and they only get out on the streets when the sun shines and that 's THREE months of the year and that's to complain about the previous nine months when it was pissing down with acid rain.
The resistance (to the warmongerers) is here somewhere but not out in force !
The lawyers and the journalists and the opposition to this war might well get Blair's skin before the end of his third mandate BUT...in the meantime the freedom fighters, the innocents (!?) the brits and the yanks that are there in IRAQ are all exposed to an uncertain future in a NO WIN situation.
If there is a solution to this conflict, the pressure should come from whithin and it's the forces of opposition in America that will lead us into progress along with the individuals or groups concerned about this conflict and thats on a global basis and at a price I guess.
I've no grudge against thEE Americans...to me the notion of fatherland is tarnished by patriotism and all that bullshit.
What happened though...is that by our very complacency and inactions we have let the bullies rule our lives and under a disgraceful masquerade that has taken the virtues of democracy and freedom away from us all, we are now lumbered with one dodgey lot of untrustworthy politicians that deserves no less than to be...robespierred ! or emasculated at least.
Blair's a clown...(to get back on the subject) he was a snake from day one ! a sad careerist like the others interested solely in promoting himself as a politichien and a kind of emblematic representative for the corporations, the industrials and the speculaters relishing in his new self-important status and trading the pitance of family tax credits and other benefits to a good 3 million misfits that would have died an immminent death under the Tories - I had flatmates back in the days that had real reserves and fears about having him as a leader (do we really need leaders) when he succeded Sergeant MAJOR back in 1995 (was it???)
Thee absolute truth should now be known...Bin Lala and his brothers all sat down with the Bushes around the same table debating market tactics and crude oil for breakfast and when they got pissed off pissing each other off they decided to start this abominable conflict and we all now know in what sorry state we are with recession reering its ugly 'ead in Blighty and the rest of europe undecided about its fate over to be or not to be and Bushe's America posing as one big terror threat over all the millions of idiots that we are.
I cant really be more constructive at 4.16 am i hope this isnt too slanderous cos it clearly isnt in regards to the daily rubbish that erupts from me head since 9/11.
The yanks have started fighting in Seattle this last century. Despite the fact that activists bit the dust here and there severely repressed and abused by a power that has no right to be in the fisrt place...its this lot thats going to sort the mess out...then opposition movements will grow worlwide and maybe it'll be a tad better to share this planet with a more promising future that the present we have now. War isnt really good for anything. We knew that but THEY didnt. Strummer said it...then he was assassinated by the CIA and he came back as a fireman after they scattered his ashes in the Ganges.
Sod afterlife and your fecking private pension plan...it's now or never!
Marcel...er no F.Langlier (from the Garden when the sun don't shine but the drips dropalot)

Osvaldo Brasado, Portugal

Dear Addam, from West Virginia
Your post was amazingly clear and logical. It was a real pleasure to read.
However, I would like to point out one basic idea: don't think the 90's were a time of commercial surplus for the US. Just search in the net for the report "the US trade deficit and the "New Economy"", written by Michael Pakko from the St. Louis Fed. The falling curve on page 1 and the note why there was a spike around 1992 speak volumes. The surplus was obtained by borrowing from social security (which adds more to its credit, :7)).
But let us go to the heart of current miscomprehension on what is happening in the US.
First, take a peek on the graphic on the evolution through time of academic qualifications by US citizens, shown in Emmanuel Todd's "The Economic Illusion". I think it is the first graphic on the book. A long discussion follows from there. Call it evidence A.
Having that information close to you, then go read, for an example, what Irving Kristol says about the failure of the liberal policies of the 60's, in the BBC documentary "The Power of nightmares", episode 1. A transcript can be found on the web. Call it evidence B.
Joining A and B, one may realise that the actual decay of US society started before the implementation of the politically liberal (or social) policies of the 60's could have had effect.
To do that to the US is bad enough, but some people are trying to export the unliberal (associal?) revolution to the rest of the world. Because of its success, imagine it.
...
Canada is one of the best places to live in the world. Tell me of a better compliment to a country. My congratulations to the almost universally well-esteemed "Canucks".
PS. on the film "Les invasions barbares": someone should offer to its Quisling director a citizenship adequate to its philocracy. He sure is no friend of philosophy.

Osvaldo Brasao, Portugal

Just a correction: evidence A, if true, suffices in showing the time of decay was prior to the one acknowledged in B. evidence B is presented to claim that neo-conservatives have an inverted explanation of what is happened.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Now that I think about it, Political-Action Committees (PACs) in the U.S. tend to fare much better and be much more successful if they have a catchy, easy-to-remember name.
|
So, in order to make the "Gang Of Five" Political-Action Committee (PAC) (composed of George Soros, Peter Lewis, Stephen Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler) highly visible, all we need to do is give their PAC an acronymic title that will immediately inspire knowing nods of recognition.
|
As a matter of fact, I think I have the perfect suggestion for them.
|
I propose that they designate their PAC "Billionaire Ultra-Liberal Leftists Spending Huge, Incredible Totals" --- (B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.)

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5

Debate - Page 3/5