How Safe is Canada by piratejenny

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

How Safe is Canada

POSTED BY: PIRATEJENNY
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 19:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 13872
PAGE 3 of 3

Sunday, November 28, 2004 7:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

From this Sunday's Washington Post Opiniom section. Since you have to log on to read it, here's the whole thing.

Quote:
Before You Flee to Canada, Can We Talk?

By Nora Jacobson
Sunday, November 28, 2004; Page B02

TORONTO

I moved to Canada after the 2000 election. Although I did it mainly for career reasons -- I got a job whose description read as though it had been written precisely for my rather quirky background and interests -- at the time I found it gratifying to joke that I was leaving the United States because of George W. Bush. It felt fine to think of myself as someone who was actually going to make good on the standard election-year threat to leave the country. Also, I had spent years of my life feeling like I wasn't a typical American and wishing I could be Canadian. I wanted to live in a country that was not a superpower, a country I believe to have made the right choices about fairness, human rights and the social compact.

So I could certainly identify with the disappointed John Kerry supporters who started fantasizing about moving to Canada after Nov. 2. But after nearly four years as an American in the Great White North, I've learned it's not all beer and doughnuts. If you're thinking about coming to Canada, let me give you some advice: Don't.

Although I enjoy my work and have made good friends here, I've found life as an American expatriate in Canada difficult, frustrating and even painful in ways that have surprised me. As attractive as living here may be in theory, the reality's something else. For me, it's been one of almost daily confrontation with a powerful anti-Americanism that pervades many aspects of life. When I've mentioned this phenomenon to Canadian friends, they've furrowed their brows sympathetically and said, "Yes, Canadian anti-Americanism can be very subtle." My response is, there's nothing subtle about it.

The anti-Americanism I experience generally takes this form: Canadians bring up "the States" or "Americans" to make comparisons or evaluations that mix a kind of smug contempt with a wariness that alternates between the paranoid and the absurd.

Thus, Canadian media discussion of President Bush's upcoming official visit on Tuesday focuses on the snub implied by his not having visited earlier. It's reported that when he does come, he will not speak to a Parliament that's so hostile it can't be trusted to receive him politely. Coverage of a Canadian athlete caught doping devolves into complaints about how Americans always get away with cheating. The "Blame Canada" song from the "South Park" movie is taken as documentary evidence of Americans' real attitudes toward this country. The ongoing U.S. ban on importing Canadian cattle (after a case of mad cow disease was traced to Alberta) is interpreted as a form of political persecution. A six o'clock news show introduces a group of parents and children who are convinced that the reason Canadian textbooks give short shrift to America's failed attempts to invade the Canadian territories in the War of 1812 is to avoid antagonizing the Americans -- who are just waiting for an excuse to give it another try.

My noisy neighbors revel in Canada's two hockey golds at the 2002 Olympics because "We beat the Americans in America!" The first gay couple to wed in Ontario tells the press, before they say anything else, that they are glad they don't live in the United States. A PR person at the hospital where I work, who has been eager to talk to me about a book I've published, puts down her pen when she learns that I'm American and that the book is nearly devoid of "Canadian content."

More seriously, in the wake of 9/11, after the initial shock wore off, it was common to hear some Canadians voice the opinion that Americans had finally gotten what they deserved. The attacks were just deserts for years of interventionist U.S. foreign policy, the increasing inequality between the world's poorest nations and the wealthiest one on earth, and a generalized arrogance. I heard similar views expressed after Nov. 2, when Americans were perceived to have revealed their true selves and thus to "deserve" a second Bush term.

Canadians often use three metaphors to portray their relationship with the United States. They describe Canada as "sleeping with an elephant." Even when the elephant is at rest, they worry that it may suddenly roll over and crush them. They refer to the U.S.-Canadian border as "the longest one-way mirror in the world" -- Canadians peer closely at Americans, trying to make sense of their every move, while the United States sees only its own reflection. Finally, they liken Canada to a gawky teenage girl with a hopeless crush on the handsome and popular boy next door. You know, the one who doesn't even know she exists.

The self-image conveyed in these metaphors is timid and accommodating. Perhaps this is how Canadians see themselves (or would like to be seen), but my experience is that they are extremely aggressive (if somewhat passively so) when it comes to demonstrating their deep ambivalence toward Americans. Take the popular TV show "Talking to Americans," which simultaneously showcases Americans' ignorance about Canada and mocks Canadians' unhealthy preoccupation with what Americans really think of them. Of course, there's often something of the stalker in that gawky teenage girl, isn't there?

Part of what's irksome about Canadian anti-Americanism and the obsession with the United States is that it seems so corrosive to Canada. Any country that defines itself through a negative ("Canada: We're not the United States") is doomed to an endless and repetitive cycle of hand-wringing and angst. For example, Canadians often point to their system of universal health care as the best example of what it means to be Canadian (because the United States doesn't provide it), but this means that any effort to adjust or reform that system (which is not perfect) precipitates a national identity crisis: To wit, instituting co-payments or private MRI clinics will make Canada too much like the United States.

The rush to make comparisons sometimes prevents meaningful examination of the very real problems that Canada faces. (For me, it has become the punch line of a private joke that whenever anything bad happens here, the first response is a chagrined cry of "But we're Canadian!" -- the "not American" can be inferred.) As a Canadian social advocate once told me, when her compatriots look at their own societal problems, they are often satisfied once they can reassure themselves that they're better off than the United States. As long as there's still more homelessness, racism and income inequality to the south, Canadians can continue to rest easy in their moral superiority.

Many Canadians have American relatives or travel frequently to the United States, but a large number are pretty naive about their neighbors to the south. A university student confidently told me that there had been "no dissent" in the United States during the run-up to the Iraq war. Toronto boosters argue that American cities lack the ethnic diversity found in Canada's largest metropolis. The author of a popular book on the differences between the Canadian and American characters (a topic of undying interest here) promotes the view that Americans are all authority-loving conformists.

Ultimately, Canadian anti-Americanism says more about Canada than it does about the United States. Because some 80 to 90 percent of this country's trade is with the United States, the reality is that Canadians need Americans to sustain their economy and thus the quality of life they value. Such dependence breeds resentment. In "officially multicultural Canada," hostility toward Americans is the last socially acceptable expression of bigotry and xenophobia. It would be impossible to say the things about any other nationality that Canadians routinely say -- both publicly and privately -- about Americans. On a human level, it can be rude and hurtful. (As it was on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, when an acquaintance angrily told me that she would now have to curtail her travel plans because she was afraid she might be mistaken for an American.) And there's no way to argue against it. An American who attempts to correct a misconception or express even the mildest approval for the policies of U.S. institutions is likely to be dismissed as thin-skinned or offensive, and as demonstrating those scary nationalistic tendencies that threaten the world.

I felt a strong tug toward America when the borders shut for several hours on the afternoon of 9/11, and again after the election this month. Canadian friends were honestly shocked when I, a caricature of a bluestocking blue-stater (I've spent most of my life in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland and Wisconsin, with short stays in Washington state and the bluest part of Colorado), said that I would in many ways prefer to live in the United States, and not just because it's home. They assume that it's better, more comfortable, to be in a place seemingly more in tune with one's own political and philosophical leanings. Right after the election, many asked me if I would now apply for Canadian citizenship.

I don't intend to do that, because experiencing the anti-Americanism I've described has been instructive: Living here and coping with it has forced me to confront my own feelings about America. And it's helped me discover what I do value about it: its contradictions, its eccentricities, its expansive spirit, all the intensity and opportunity of a deeply flawed, widely inconsistent, but always interesting country. Perhaps I am a typical American, after all.

Author's e-mail:

nora_jacobson@hotmail.com

Nora Jacobson is an American medical sociologist living in Toronto.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2004 5:41 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Wow, typically American is right

Its like the obnoxious ADD bully kid in the playground crying because none of the other kids like him...

" Why doesn't anyone like us "

You just have to feel sorry for them...

Someone feed them some ritalin ... please

or take a long look at the why all us other kids feel this way

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2004 6:17 PM

SIGMANUNKI

article:
"It's reported that when he does come, he will not speak to a Parliament that's so hostile it can't be trusted to receive him politely. "
This is so rediculus it isn't funny.

article:
"Coverage of a Canadian athlete caught doping devolves into complaints about how Americans always get away with cheating."
No it doesn't and yes you do.

article:
"The "Blame Canada" song from the "South Park" movie is taken as documentary evidence of Americans' real attitudes toward this country."
Again, so rediculus it isn't funny. Perhaps she just doesn't understand that our humour is mainly sarcastic and as such she would fail to understand and misinterpret it. I for one laughed at the song.

Also, I've been living in Canada for a long time (my life minus 8 months) and have never heard of such a thing. Where the hell did she get this from?

Or perhaps it's the typical sensationalism american over exageration of everything that we're seeing here.

article:
"The ongoing U.S. ban on importing Canadian cattle (after a case of mad cow disease was traced to Alberta) is interpreted as a form of political persecution."
Perhaps she should look into this a little closer. Our position is that the US closed the boarders for all the wrong reasons. Something that was echoed by the WTO but the US didn't care. See cheating remark above.

article:
"A six o'clock news show introduces a group of parents and children who are convinced that the reason Canadian textbooks give short shrift to America's failed attempts to invade the Canadian territories in the War of 1812 is to avoid antagonizing the Americans -- who are just waiting for an excuse to give it another try. "
Where the hell does she come up with this? Is this a comedy routine? When was this ever said?

article:
"My noisy neighbors revel in Canada's two hockey golds at the 2002 Olympics because "We beat the Americans in America!""
What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

article:
"The first gay couple to wed in Ontario tells the press, before they say anything else, that they are glad they don't live in the United States."
I would think that given the current attitude toward gays in the US that this would be a very apropriate thing to say. How is this bad? It's clear that the gays have an extremely hard time in the US, especially compared to the time they have here. And again, I highly doubt that this was the *first* words out of there mouths.

article:
"A PR person at the hospital where I work, who has been eager to talk to me about a book I've published, puts down her pen when she learns that I'm American and that the book is nearly devoid of "Canadian content." "
And what context was this in? What was the book about? What was the topic of discussion? What was the actual sentence that informed the person that this book was devoid of Canadian content?

I know while I lived in the US that there were *many* things that the americans said in a way that would be consider *extremely* rude here, but down there it was normal. Perhaps it was something like this.

Funny how she doesn't even consider the culture differences in her analysis of the situation.

article:
"it was common to hear some Canadians voice the opinion that Americans had finally gotten what they deserved."
If this was so common, then how come I *never* heard it? I think that she can't tell the difference between "You got what you deserved." and "With there forgien policy, I'm not surprised it happened. In fact, it was inevitable." *HUGE* difference.

article:
"I heard similar views expressed after Nov. 2, when Americans were perceived to have revealed their true selves and thus to "deserve" a second Bush term. "
How is this not true? The americans *voted* (this time) GW in. After all, we all lie in the bed we make.

Then again, this is also a consiquence of the political system. There is no such thing as a minority government. There is always *one* guy in charge and no-one else really has any say. They also knew that he owns pretty much every level of government and as such and pretty much do whatever he wants. The facts are out there on every issue, but "the people" still voted him in?

Where are the protests? Where is the civil disobedience? Where are the lobiest? Hell, even the papers that were highly citical of GW *before* the election are now silent. The US opposition has basically rolled over and died, so yes, it is a deserved.

I fear for the next 4 years. That is, if GW doesn't find a way to extend it.

article:
"They describe Canada as "sleeping with an elephant." "
How isn't this true. We are a nation of ~32 million people. The US ~300 million. That's about 10 times bigger. The US also has a... non-diplomatic way of dealing with things. So yah, I think that we have a right to be a little twichy.

article:
"Canadians peer closely at Americans, trying to make sense of their every move, while the United States sees only its own reflection. "
I've lived in the states and talked to people. This is absolutly true, all but one thing. Most americans think that the end of the world is there boarders.

But this is a very obsene way of putting it. We aren't scientists observing some experiment. We watch, because our economies are so intertwined, that whatever effects the US, effects us as well. The US on the other hand, will do what it bloody well pleases, the rest of the world be damned. It's what it wants. History backs me up here.

article:
"Finally, they liken Canada to a gawky teenage girl with a hopeless crush on the handsome and popular boy next door. You know, the one who doesn't even know she e
xists. "
Again, so rediculus it isn't funny. But, slightly true. See above.

article:
"..., but my experience is that they are extremely aggressive (if somewhat passively so) when it comes to demonstrating their deep ambivalence toward Americans."
It's called passive aggressive behaviour. The fact that this woman doesn't even know the correct term for it just tells of the level she works at. Plus, talking to Americans is *not* a TV show. It *was* a segment of another TV show. The acuracy of her comments her just tells of the "research" that she must have done to write this article, which is further evidence of her level.

article:
"Part of what's irksome about Canadian anti-Americanism..."continues
This is absolutly amazing. Did she even live here?

1) we *used* *to* define ourselves by "not america."
2) our definition cannot be summed up shortly. It's part of being an actual multicultural society.
3) co-payments, etc go against the philosophy of our health care system, that is the reason why it isn't done. Plus there is the old adage, "Give an inch, take a mile." Plus there are NAFTA concerns, etc.

article:
"As a Canadian social advocate once told me, when her compatriots look at their own societal problems, they are often satisfied once they can reassure themselves that they're better off than the United States. As long as there's still more homelessness, racism and income inequality to the south, Canadians can continue to rest easy in their moral superiority. "
This must be a joke. I know many different types in here, from our extreme right to our extreme left, and I know of *no-one* that would make anything near such a claim. Perhaps it's just the american superiority coming out in her that makes her "see" things that aren't there. This must be true because, after all, america is the best nation in the world, right?

article:
"A university student confidently told me that there had been "no dissent" in the United States during the run-up to the Iraq war."
Many people use this word differently. I know some that only use it in the way of more violent movements. Plus, I'd like to know how a person still in university, still "wet behind the ears" so to say, is representitive of a "large number" of Canadians?

article:
"The author of a popular book on the differences between the Canadian and American characters (a topic of undying interest here) promotes the view that Americans are all authority-loving conformists. "
GW was voted in right? Kerry did roll over *before* all the votes were counted, right? There are numerous counts of acusations of voter fraud from a multitude of different angle (not reported in the US media

), right? There is are exceptions to rules, right? Then how is the latter part of this statment valid?

article:
"Ultimately, Canadian anti-Americanism says more about..."continues
What the hell is she talking about? Our opinion about the US is because of the US's policies and attitudes. This is something that is shared around the world, not just in Canada. But I guess that it is just easier to dismiss if that little tid bit of info is left out. < sarcasm > We're just jealous. < /sarcasm >

I would think that since the every culture that went to the US was oppressed in various ways that she shouldn't really be talking about bigotry. I would think that since the US has implimented certain profilings, etc in it's forgien policies that she shouldn't be talking about xenophobia.

We are the ones that *don't* encourage people to disavow there previous citizenships. We are the ones that *do* have a plan for large scale immigration whereas the US is becoming ever more restrictive in its immigration laws. What was that about xenophobia?

And it isn't anything new that we are afraid that we will be mistaken for an american while traveling abroad. There *is* a reason why we put our flags on our backpacks when we do go abroad. But then again, so do a fair number of americans. In fact, I know people who've met americans who do so abroad. Now why would some one do that if they live in the best country in the world?

article:
"Canadian friends were honestly shocked when I,..."continues
The situation in the US was bad, it got worse, and with GW in charge, and from what he's said after the elections, it will get even worse than it is now. So why wouldn't they be? And what's wrong with an honest question anyway?

She scares me with her definition of interesting.

I would also think that if she really wanted to know what Canada thought that she'd actually ask the rest of Canada. Or perhaps it's because our country is sooo small, she can just assume.

All I can say is...

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2004 6:26 PM

SIGMANUNKI

@GinoBiffarioni:
Agreed. Perhaps she should look into that mirror thing that she brought up. Seems appropriate

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2004 8:21 AM

PBI

There's more than a few grains of truth in that article from the Post. Canada is not a land of milk and honey, though we do love to pretend it is so. We have faults, and sometimes we're not always honest about facing up to them.

However.

Quite a bit of what I read in that article rang true for me, but from the reverse angle. I lived in the US briefly (from '99 to '03) and ran into quite a lot of the same difficulties and challenges as the author of the article did.

The thing that shocked me the most was the huge, but subtle, differences in cultures. We tend to think of the US and Canada as being more alike than is the case. Yes, many Americans might be relatively ignorant of the rest of the world, but, then again, when one is a citizen of the Superpower (like Rome was, in its day), doesn't that convey a bit of luxury in that regard? It's a natural response. Of course, having been subjected to US media for the better part of four years, I also have a better understanding of why the levels of ignorance remain as high as they do. Garbage in, garbage out.

But before we get on our high horse, let's realize we are better in that regard, but not by much, to judge by some of the studies that have been released recently.

I tend to agree with the author when I talk to my American friends that might be considering moving here in the aftermath of the US elections. I tell them to stop, take a pill, and give the whole thing some really serious thought. Ripping one's life up by the roots and moving to another country is not a thing to be entered in to lightly, and I get the distinct impression that many Americans are suffering from a greener pastures syndrome. The last thing I'd want is for hordes of US citizens coming north expecting Paradise and being horribly disappointed.

For the record, yes, I do think Canada is a better country than the US, just as Americans tend to think and feel the same way about their country. Nothing wrong with it as long as things don't get ugly. One can be proud of one's country without peeing on someone else's.

I think the main thing at work here is a lessening of the willingness of other nations, and specifically Western nations, to remain under the direction of the US as 'leader of the free world'. For a long, long time, the US was the guarantor of the Western democratic way of life and while it was, things went more-or-less smoothly because everyone's interests were headed in the same direction. Once the Warsaw Pact came apart (funnily enough, they were as scared of us as we were of them, as documents leaking out of the Kremlin are beginning to attest), the need to subordinate to the US fell away and it's almost as if an overnight wave of nationalism swept the West and, in Canada at any rate, it suddenly became okay to think that Canada was a 'good' country in its own right.

I'm not certain many Americans understand this, though. At least, that's been my experience. During my time in the US, I often encountered friends who would look at me in a truly puzzled manner when I told them I had no intention to become a US citizen, no matter if I stayed 20 months or 20 years; they simply could not seem to grasp that citizens of other nationalities might love their nation as much as US citizens love the US. I wasn't offended by it, but it was interesting, and there wasn't any malice offered, only confusion. The same sorts of confusion many Canadians express over certain US domestic policies (and, I'm certain, in the reverse on the part of Americans).

What we need to do, on both sides, is to move past the knee-jerk responses (and, yes, I've practiced my fair share), even if, especially if, the jerking of the knee gets rather heated. A person is spectacularly unwilling to listen to an argument when their wind is up.

The danger to Canada is in Canadian citizens and their politicians not having a sufficient amount of backbone in standing up to the US when the US pursues policies that Canada doesn't like. We've already seen, relatively quietly, actions conceptualized and executed, by Canadians, in an attempt to head off certain perceived flashpoints with the US. The new Department of ublic Safety and Emergency Preparedness, allowing US customs officials to operate in Canada, the "convenience" of having INS officers in certain Canadian airports (long before the events of Sept. 11, but still germaine), and others. The point is that we're doing these things to ourselves, not the Big, Bad US.

Are we safe from the US? Directly, sure. Indirectly, only time will tell, but I'm somewhat confident.

Will we end up being a greater danger to ourselves than the US could hope to be? That's an open question I'm not so confident on.

If you can survive death, you can probably survive almost anything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2004 8:58 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

"
The danger to Canada is in Canadian citizens and their politicians not having a sufficient amount of backbone in standing up to the US "

This is another reason to push our government to encourage elements of our economy to find markets other than the US. With so much of our trade going South, we are are affected too much by the way they run things down there.

If we had even %50 of our trade going elsewhere, we could more effectivly stand up to the Americans when they violate their trade agreements, it seems even though the WTO rules against them and assigns penaltys they always seem to think themselves above following the rules. Either we accept it, or impose tariffs ourselves. Screw the WTO, screw NAFTA. and well, I'm not the accepting type.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2004 12:56 PM

SIGMANUNKI

@PBI:
It is true that Canada has its fair share of skeletons in its closet, but where I think the problem comes in is that whenever Canada is brought up, it's usually in context of comparison to the US. It's weird, but I can't remember one conversation in my life when Canada was brought up not in this context. So, we always start off by saying that we're different, we're not the US, and here are the differences.

Also, our "bashing" of the US isn't it in total. We focus on a number of policies and known traits of there culture. If someone like the person who wrote this article actually ask the question, "Well, do you think that there is anything good about the US?", I fully believe that she would've been absolutly shocked with the answer. Because there are good things about it.

As an example of the above, when I talk about there arogance, I only comment on it, but not about its cause or if I blame them for having it. Of course, knowing the media down there, there effective brainwashing in schools that "convince" the students that the US is the best, the general attitudes in society that further this goal, etc I don't really blame them. But, at the same time I do as well.

I believe that it is every persons responsibility to culture oneself. And that would require them to go out to the rest of the world. That would require them to read books on a variety of topics and educate themselves, etc. Clearly, on mass, this isn't happening, not one bit. So, in this regard, I do blame them.

And of course people that are considering moving to just another city should think it over before going, never mind another country. One must "sit on it" for a bit and see if that is really what is
wanted.

When it comes to culture, Canada's culture has been developing nicely. One must realize that being such a young country our culture still hasn't fully developed yet. So, when we are asked about Canada, that's a tough question. We aren't like the European countries that have enjoyed a long history so people have something to point to. This is changing though.

I as well encountered the confusion when the americans I knew found out not only that I had no intention of staying in the country, but that I had (and still don't) no intention of ever returning. My wife thinks the same way, but doesn't mind going back for conferences, etc.

I think that the difference here is that in the US, people get looks of confusion if they say, "No I don't ever plan to become a citizen." whereas here, in this article, she took offence at just the question, "Are you going to apply for citizenship?" It's a rather violent reaction if you ask me.

I believe what need to be done is what you put forth, and for the people in the US to realize that when we citisize them, it's about very specific things. Our countries have rather different values in many regards and both have good reasons for them, or at least they both say they do.

When it comes down to it, if I were to recommend one thing to people in the states, it's, don't just react. You've been doing that in the past number of years and where has it gotten you. Clearly it isn't working for you. So, sit back, calm down, and think about what the problem really is. And not the problems that are on the surface. Look deep down, look to the core values that have lead you to where you are today. See if anything is wrong and change it. Because from where I sit, there are some deep seeded problems in the US mentality, and they are things that won't be fixed in a few years, they're long term fixes. So the US is going to have to stop thinking in the short term and look to the long term (which is one of the problems, IMO).

I definitly agree with you that our polititions need backbones when it comes to dealing with the US. Jean was a great start, and I believe that how he dealt with 9/11 was appropriate beyond words. I think that we've taken a step back lately though and Martin isn't exactly ideal and Harper just wants to bend over for the US and has *way* too much power. Perhaps in the next election we can get something done.

I think that we should also be strengthening our ties to the EU and perhaps one day apply for membership to start making it a world body instead of just Europe. It's also lessen our dependance on trade with the US which would strengthen our ecomony.

At any rate, with what Canada is allowing today with regards to our economy, we are a danger to ourselves. Hopefully Martin will change some things, but I'm not exactly confident about that.

Oh well, as you say, time will tell.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2004 4:23 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have just a few comments about 'life in Canada' for US expats.

The US has moved down to 27th (same level as Slovenia and Poland) from 18th for quality of life. Chronic urban poverty and a lack of health insurance "45 Million Americans Uninsured, Census Bureau Says" http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C20040
8%5CNAT20040826d.html are major factors. However, the US also has poor education systems, rotting infrastructure, high real unemployment, etc. Canada is not Camelot, but it's better for the average John or Jane Doe than the US.

How does one spot a Canadian in a crowd? They are the ones standing straight, head up and looking around, acting for all the world like they belong. The Americans are the ones looking down on the ground, at the wall, out the window, fiddling with their phones, and doing their best to not meet anyone's eye or to stand out in any way as a potential target to be hustled, or mugged.

I spent enough time in Canada to get a sense of how different Canadian (Anglophone) culture can seem, but for me it was a great thing. My feeling is it is at once more secure, social, and open, and less personal and also less maipulative. But perhaps that had to do with my being mainly in Toronto, which is exceptionally cosmopolitan. Also, I was there for only about 6mos, and still in the honeymoon, enjoying the sights, anthropologist stage. Toronto was a delight and a wonder. I never had a negative reaction to me as an Amercian.

To get a sense of what a move from the US to Canada might have meant for the author (who seems thoroughly alienated) I can only reference my experience of moving from the northeast US - land of the personally conservative but socially liberal - to Los Angeles - the exact opposite. It took years for the assumptions, conversations and opinions of the people around me to not strike me as harsh, and to not feel alien and pointedly excluded. (On average it takes about 7 years to make that adjustment, but some are primed to accept anything as long as it's different and new, while others take longer.)

I'm not nearly as familiar with Canada as I used to be. For years I used to bike 5mi - or about 8km - over the border every few days - both before and after my Toronto stay; and got my news predominantly from the CBC. So I thank the Canadians on this board who've to some extent brought me up to date. Merci beaucoups.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2004 7:01 PM

UNICORN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

I should explain better. When I say bring some. The some are issues and topics for discussion.

Dear Loser,
This thread is about Canadians wondering if their country is safe given the increasing fascist bent of the US government.

When the issue of how political dissenters are seeking asylum and how others are considering securing their children from a possible draft for an unpopular war was raised Hero jumped in obfuscating the truth about why a draft law was proposed and then proclaiming Ohio could take Canada, but it wouldn't be worth the effort.

Xion47 jumped in and pointed out how free enterprise medicine Americans are going to evil socialized medicine Canada to secure influenza shots not available in the US and posted a handy link on how to cut through red tape for Americans looking to stay in Canada.

Connorflynn had to jump in and laugh at the Canadian military and Sigmanuki took issue with that pointing out the fallacy of a US invasion of Canada. Hero goosestepped in and suggested taking away socialized health care to suppress rebellion in the newly conquered Canadian provinces. Then there was a pissing contest between Connorflynn and Ginobiffaroni with you chiming in and discussing root causes of conflict, blame and reward/punishment.

Ginobiffaroni invited all Americans to stop dicking around with other countries and mind our own business and Barnstormer took offense and began putting on display behavior to impress lord knows who.

Then when Ghoulman drew the inevitable line of comparison between the written words and threats of the American members of this thread to the Nazi brownshirts Barnstormer tried to turn it around and point it at the Canadians.

At which time, thoroughly sick of it all, I said you three did not reflect the opinion of every American. Was this wrong? No. As a matter of fact since you three seem to be representing the flyover states of the inbred, misogynizing heartland I think you have validated the question asked in the beginning of this thread.

How safe is Canada? Not very, if only judging by the knuckle-dragging, chest-thumping behavior of you neanderthals.

You've proven the point admirably. You have to shout down every dissenting opinion, no matter how well based or supportable. So, using you three as a model, given that the US is on the road to fascism and dissenters are leaving for other, freedom-loving countries, it logically follows that the US, in an attempt to quash the dissent, just as you have tried to quash dissent by posting, long, rambling exposition, will try to do the same. Since those dissenters are in other sovereign states it follows that the US will go get them. And when you three haven't been able to bury the conversation in your screeching you have resorted to threats. I am confident the US will act accordingly. An invasion seems inevitable.

Post here if you think Hero, Barnstormer and Jasonzzz have at any time admired Hitler or praised Nazi Germany's accomplishments.

Hardware, can I shine your shoes?
That was cool.

Normally I think people who post stuff like what I'm posting here (fanmail) are creating an unecessarily long thread. But I can't help it. That was awesome, and I'd like to buy you a beer.
:-)

I should get some popcorn too-- I bet the sequel will be fraught with drama and contention!

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2004 7:11 PM

UNICORN

Guys, Guys--
We're not going to attack Canada; we're going to buy it! We'll give ya each $10,000 (not tax deductible of course, why complicate things?). Sort of a signing bonus, you might say. Then, lucky you, you'll all be Americans! Wheee! And we'll only have just about doubled our national debt.

Then we'll get rid of pesky functional healthcare and install metal detectors in all of your schools, in which we're going to teach Creationism as a viable scientific alternative to that funky Darwinism.

But hey, Coke and Disney!
So drink up up guys, and enjoy!

Remember, we've got a lot of sovereign nations to preemptively attack in the morning, so make sure you get some sleep!

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2004 7:34 PM

LEXIBLOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by TauSetiPrime:
An actor who wins an Academy Award is no more or less qualified to determine the nature of politics than any other average citizen.

Yes, because they have the money not to worry about day to day struggles and can rise about the ordinary to actually ponder what is going on. Not to mention that 99% of the really big actors became "big" because they are very intelligent(of course there is always Stallone ;)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 29, 2004 8:00 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by TauSetiPrime:

An actor who wins an Academy Award is no more or less qualified to determine the nature of politics than any other average citizen.

Actually, given the fact that successful actors tend to fly around the world and as such, become cultured, and a lot are actually educated, I'd say that they have a unique perspective on politics. ie how it would effect others. They probably also, gasp, read forgien news paper.

And if they care (which a lot do) then they open there mouths and speak. The also tend to have time to actually read and figure things out.

I once thought like you, "What the hell are these actors doing? Do they think that they have a better grasp on things than the average person?"

Let me tell you, after living in the US and talking with the "average american" (at least where I was), these people are doing a favour for the "average american." Listen.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 2:47 AM

LEXIBLOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by TauSetiPrime:
Quote:
I also agree with GHOULMAN in that the idea of the U.S. invading Canada is laughable.

Don't they have oil? Then it probably won't be so laughable in 15 years when there is very little left.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:03 AM

LEXIBLOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Kerry was the draft guy. I don't understand why it got put on Bush.

Because political observers observe, not just rely on the latest propganda from Fox news.

Quote:
Good thing I voted for Bush.

Yep, now you'll have a chance to invade strange new countries and get shot at.

Unless you eat to much - you do know why so many americans are overweight? They are trying to avoid the draft!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 4:40 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by LexiBlock

Don't they have oil? Then it probably won't be so laughable in 15 years when there is very little left.

Well..we can always hope the new hybrids take off as well as the fuel cell technology before then hehe. Although, there are massive reserves in the Alaskan areas. So Canada may be safe for a little while longer ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:28 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by LexiBlock:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Kerry was the draft guy. I don't understand why it got put on Bush.

Because political observers observe, not just rely on the latest propganda from Fox news.

I watched the debates on NBC. Kerry said "inrease size of army by 40,000". And the Bill to reintroduce the draft was avaliable through numerous sources w/both the Congress and the media, so eliminating FOX propaganda we are left we a Democratic candidate who wants and bigger army and a Democratic Bill that would reintroduce the draft. Those are the basic facts. Starting with those two facts its easier to get to Kerry wanting a draft then to get to Bush wanting a draft. When it comes to the draft and Bush, they start with spin and end with lies and ignore the facts.

Bush Hater logic: ME HATE BUSH, ME HATE DRAFT. ME THINK BUSH MUST WANT DRAFT!
also:
BUSH HATE TERRORISTS, ME HATE BUSH. ME LOVE TERRORISTS!
and:
ME HATE BUSH, FRANCE HATE BUSH. ME LOVE FRANCE!
oh,
ME LOVE FIREFLY, ME HATE BUSH. BUSH MOVE MOVIE RELEASE DATE!

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:09 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Hero's Logic

These people don't agree with me...
What is wrong with them ??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:56 AM

UNICORN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Kerry was the draft guy. I don't understand why it got put on Bush.

I watched the debates on NBC. Kerry said "inrease size of army by 40,000". And the Bill to reintroduce the draft was avaliable through numerous sources w/both the Congress and the media, so eliminating FOX propaganda we are left we a Democratic candidate who wants and bigger army and a Democratic Bill that would reintroduce the draft. Those are the basic facts. Starting with those two facts its easier to get to Kerry wanting a draft then to get to Bush wanting a draft. When it comes to the draft and Bush, they start with spin and end with lies and ignore the facts.

No, you're right about half of that. Bush and Kerry BOTH claimed to be staunchly against the draft.

We don't believe your guy because, for example, of promises made regarding a certain amount of education funding which after it was promised NEVER APPEARED. That's an old one, but it's a really important one. He's had four years to fix it and he hasn't. So we're just not that ready to believe everything he says anymore.

Quote:

Bush Hater logic: ME HATE BUSH, ME HATE DRAFT. ME THINK BUSH MUST WANT DRAFT!
also:
BUSH HATE TERRORISTS, ME HATE BUSH. ME LOVE TERRORISTS!
and:
ME HATE BUSH, FRANCE HATE BUSH. ME LOVE FRANCE!
oh,
ME LOVE FIREFLY, ME HATE BUSH. BUSH MOVE MOVIE RELEASE DATE!

Um, your guy's the one more inclined to use 'me do anything' in a sentence.

I'm not always sure whether people on your side of the fence are joking or not when they say people who hate Bush therefore love terrorists. If you are, I'm kind of not thinking it's very funny with all of the times I've been called a traitor lately by your compadres.

So, for the record and especially for all of those out there who continue to be mistaken on this point, we're not unAmerican just because we disagree with you!

And dude, there's nothing wrong with France except that they're wild about Jerry Lewis. The snoots are mostly in Paris and they're just language snobs who are tired of loud, obnoxious Americans expecting the rest of the world to cater to us because we're too lazy to learn a second language; most people in Europe speak several, you know? It wouldn't kill us to learn a bit if we're planning on travelling.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:15 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
No, you're right about half of that. Bush and Kerry BOTH claimed to be staunchly against the draft.

No. But Kerry wanted to increase the size of the military, he also talked about low recruiting numbers. He did not bridge the gap between his higher numbers and how he would get them (just like his tax increase). But Democrats in Congress jumped the gun and introduced a Draft, it was staunchly opposed by Republicans, who also oppose increasing the size of the Army. Therefore Kerry favored increasing the size of the military and would use the draft to do it. Bush wants no draft and the same size force.

I think Kerry was half right. I think increasing the Army by one heavy and one light infantry division as well as a drastric increase in special ops troops is a necessary thing. It might have to wait till after the war, but I've always thought Clinton went too far in '93. I say 50,000 and NO DRAFT except for hispanic women, we need more Mamacitas in uniform.

Quote:

So, for the record and especially for all of those out there who continue to be mistaken on this point, we're not unAmerican just because we disagree with you!

I never said you were unAmerican.

YOU ARE unAmeriCAN. There, that about covers it. You may not agree, but that because you are unAmerican. How do I know?

Quote:

And dude, there's nothing wrong with France

So take your Kerry voting, wine tasting, Bush Hating, terror sympathizing, Canadian Bacon eating, Streisand listening, Heinze ketchup dipping, French licking, pansy political opinion and build us all a bridge to the Clinton library's adult section cause I gots me some crime to punish here in the big city and that means I gots to go.

Quote:

we're too lazy to learn a second language; most people in Europe speak several, you know? It wouldn't kill us to learn a bit if we're planning on travelling.

Deus Vult!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:45 PM

UNICORN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
So take your Kerry voting, wine tasting, Bush Hating, terror sympathizing, Canadian Bacon eating, Streisand listening, Heinze ketchup dipping, French licking, pansy political opinion and build us all a bridge to the Clinton library's adult section cause I gots me some crime to punish here in the big city and that means I gots to go.

*Snort!*
I almost fell out of my chair, you fascist.

God I love Firefly. How else could you and I ever have learned to enjoy one another's company?

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE