posted
Since that other thread has spiralled off, I thought I'd set this one up for us to continue our thoughtful, reasoned discussion, which we can do since we're Canadians.
------------
Twinky: The Patriot act will begin to affect the rights of Canadians and our government will do nothing other than renew and strengthen its own version of the Patriot act, which is already in place.
BtL: This point is even more depressing for the fact that it would have happened regardless of who won South of the border. It isn't so much American values impacting us as it is not enough Canadians are paying attention to what's going on up on the Hill.
Twink: Well, if Bush had been voted out, we'd be rid of John Aschroft. If the Republicans had not strengthened their Congressional and Senate majorities, the Patriot act probably wouldn't've been renewed (but I think it'll definitely be renewed now). If the Americans had dispensed with the Patriot act, we might have followed suit. Maybe. Now there's definitely no hope.
Twink: More Canadians like Maher Arar will be deported to places like Syria by the US, and, as usual, our government will do nothing for fear of offending the US.
BtL: Yeah. This I do agree with. You know how much I loathe G. Bay and the laws that allow the US to apprehend whoever they want and hold them without due process (while we have the same ones here you can only be held for three days, at which point you're released or charged).
Twink: Yeah. I have nothing to add to that.
Twink: Bush will continue to talk free trade while practicing protectionism and screwing us on steel, softwood lumber, beef, and anything else he can think of.
BtL: Yes, he will continue to do this. And I'll hate him for it. But you do have to realize that his platform was much less protectionist than Kerry's and his rule has been less protectionist than Clinton's. The issue of trade is, I think, the biggest reason to prefer Bush to Kerry from a Canadian perspective.
Twink: I agree that Kerry would have been more protectionist than Bush. What bothered me about Bush wasn't that he was protectionist, it was that he preached free trade while in reality conducting affairs WRT Canada in a thoroughly protectionist manner. Kerry, at least, was honest. Protectionism in and of itself doesn't actually bother me, although freer trade with the US has certainly been good for us.
Twink: Canadian oil companies will make a f*@$ing mint. The Canadian government will regret, intensely, its ill-advised decision to sell its Petro-Canada stock.
BtL: Again, this would have happened regardless. And who the hell advised that? I mean, really? What were they thinking? It absolutely boggles my mind.
Twink: Well, the fine folks over at Petro-Can are thrilled now that the government is out of their hair once and for all. But the thing is that oil prices have already started creeping back upward in response to Bush's reelection. Kerry was interested in other energy sources -- not clean ones, mind you, but coal. Kerry wanted to revitalize the US domestic coal industry so as not to be so reliant on Middle Eastern oil. This would have kept oil prices from going through the roof. Bush, on the other hand, is interested in oil, period, and is also interested in having Americans drive large, fuel-inefficient cars (e.g. the tax credit for SUV purchasers). Under four more years of his rule, oil prices will, I think, remain very high.
Twink: Canada will get on its knees and... well, anyway. We'll sign on to the Star Wars thing.
BtL: I'm still holding out for some sense. We haven't signed on yet and maybe Martin will have the balls to tell the US to shove those missiles up their... well, anyway, that we won't sign on. My biggest hope here is that as the gulf between Canada and the US widens in both domestic and foreign policies we'll be less and less likely to just do whatever the US tells us to. While I think it's sad that our national identity wavers between "We're the polite and morally superior US" to "We're not the US" I think more distance between our two countries is paramount. And something like this, which in no way, shape or form lines up with Canadian values, should be laughed at given the scorn it deserves. We don't want nukes, but space rockets are Ok?
Twink: I'm not nearly as optimistic as you. If Kerry had been elected, our government wouldn't feel like it has to toady up to the US to make up for Iraq. But Bush was reelected and I think Martin, what with his minority government and all, is going to have to gear up to suck some big fat American... well, anyway. They don't like vulgarity on this forum.
I agree with you as far as cultural distance is concerned. I think many Canadians (actually, most Canadians) indentify strongly with those on what the Americans laughably call their "left" ( ).
Twink: The government will allow foreign ownership of water rights, at which time the United States will promptly buy up all of our water.
BtL: Again, this would likely have happened regardless of who the president was. It'll be an interesting one, because I suspect that Canadians will fight it tooth and nail.
Twink: I dunno about that. You yourself pointed out that Kerry would have been more of a protectionist, and I think that might well have resulted in us becoming somewhat more protectionist ourselves. It's a big deal, but I haven't seen the kind of furor over it that there ought to be...
...
BtL: Anyway, like most people I've talked to, it's not the man behind the country that's scary, it's the country itself that frightens us.
Twink: Yeah. I know. The US has been drifting further and further and further to the right, and it was already well to the right of us to begin with. That whole cultural gap thing you were talking about earlier on. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The US has been drifting further and further and further to the right
The USA is by far the most religious/fundamentalist westernized/"advanced" country there is. Everywhere else, liberals are good people.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what will happen in America when we legalize gay marriage and decriminalize marijuana... (Both of these things are well on their way to happening.)
Yeah. The rise of both evangelical and fanatical Christianity in America are, for those of us north and left of you*, terrifying. Heck, look at Telperion's thread about his state's gay marriage ban.
*That's the "royal" you rather than you in particular, saxon.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Yeah it's bad news for the Patriot Act and related issues. We're just going to have to hope it doesn't spread to far.
Missile defense is pretty much a non-issue for me here as long as Canada doesn't get too involved in funding it. If the States want to blow a bunch of money it doesn't make that much difference to us, and maybe something good'll come of it someday. Stranger things have happened.
It's probably a (very) mild victory for free trade.
The mess Bush is making of the deficit probably makes Canada look more attractive. It's interesting to see that the dollar's up a fair bit today.
This has the potential to make a substantial difference in Canada's ability to attract skilled workers. Obviously most of the American's talking about moving are just blowing off steam, but we might pick up some. I think more importantly it's going to discourage emigration - I'd been thinking of applying for jobs in the States, but that's feeling a lot less likely this morning. That Sloan song is stuck in my head - "One thing I know about the rest of my life / I know that I'll be living it in Canada". There's the Twinky Factor, but Australia just feels so far away for most people.
I'd say Canada comes out of this ahead on a relative basis compared to the US and the rest of the world. Whether that'll be enough to offset the long-term damage done to the US economy and the planet in general... beats me. That's a tough prospect to build up enthusiasm for in any case.
Teshi - heh. I'm in Toronto, and my roommates laughed at me for promising them that "we'd" take California.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm doing a co-op term in the Scotia building downtown (where I'm, uhh, working as I type this). I'm living with a bunch of other Waterloo transients close to North York Center.
You're going to school here?
Posts: 148 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky:Since that other thread has spiralled off, I thought I'd set this one up for us to continue our thoughtful, reasoned discussion, which we can do since we're Canadians.
BtL: Wait, was that a glimpse of the oft searched for Canadian identity? Anyway, I’m cutting out the parts that end with “I have nothing to add” so these posts don’t break any length records.
------------
Twinky:The Patriot act will begin to affect the rights of Canadians and our government will do nothing other than renew and strengthen its own version of the Patriot act, which is already in place.
BtL:This point is even more depressing for the fact that it would have happened regardless of who won South of the border. It isn't so much American values impacting us as it is not enough Canadians are paying attention to what's going on up on the Hill.
Twink:Well, if Bush had been voted out, we'd be rid of John Aschroft. If the Republicans had not strengthened their Congressional and Senate majorities, the Patriot act probably wouldn't've been renewed (but I think it'll definitely be renewed now). If the Americans had dispensed with the Patriot act, we might have followed suit. Maybe. Now there's definitely no hope.
BtL: Far too many ifs in that scenario. Really what you’re saying here is that you don’t like Ashcroft and Bush would have to take him with him if he lost. I would have stood next to you calling out "Halleluiah!" to the heavens had that happened, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re slipping laws in under the radar here as well. As there was no attention given to this practice during any of the volumes of discussion that followed the passing of the USA Patriot act, I fail to see why it’s being dispensed would change anything. Sure it’s convenient to blame this on America, but I think this tendril is from a soup we cooked ourselves.
Twink:Bush will continue to talk free trade while practicing protectionism and screwing us on steel, softwood lumber, beef, and anything else he can think of.
BtL:Yes, he will continue to do this. And I'll hate him for it. But you do have to realize that his platform was much less protectionist than Kerry's and his rule has been less protectionist than Clinton's. The issue of trade is, I think, the biggest reason to prefer Bush to Kerry from a Canadian perspective.
Twink:I agree that Kerry would have been more protectionist than Bush. What bothered me about Bush wasn't that he was protectionist, it was that he preached free trade while in reality conducting affairs WRT Canada in a thoroughly protectionist manner. Kerry, at least, was honest. Protectionism in and of itself doesn't actually bother me, although freer trade with the US has certainly been good for us.
BtL I don’t think that kind of duplicity is the providence of Bush alone. While I applaud your morals in this case, preferring the honest man who stands to do us more harm than the dishonest man who will benefit us, it still doesn’t change who would have been better for Canada Protectionism bothers the hell out of me, you either have free trade or you don’t. What we have now is free trade when it suits the US. This has been of great benefit to them, the markets they want in on they get in on and what they want to protect they protect. How many rulings have to against them before they lift the softwood tariffs? 5? 10? Don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining.
Further, the tying of our economy so completely to the US’s does crazy things to our dollar. The dollar should not jump almost 20 cents or plummet almost 20 cents over the course of a few months, both of which have happened in the past 10 years and both of which were largely caused by what’s going on south of the border. Everything gets magnified here because we’re a smaller market. I don’t think that kind of instability is sustainable and we’re going to see bad things down the road for it. So the question is, then, is our economy robust enough to survive without "freer" trade with the US? Is there another market that can see comparable profits for Canadians so that we're not so dependent on them? Probably not now. Not really. But that Northwest Passage is opening up and that’ll make things very interesting, anyway (so long as we can claim it as ours. Nobody had a problem with it being ours while it was frozen, now while it’s interesting again everyone and their dog says it belongs to them or it’s international water). Hmm... I’ve ranted my way to a bit of a tangent here, haven’t I?
Twink:Canadian oil companies will make a f*@$ing mint. The Canadian government will regret, intensely, its ill-advised decision to sell its Petro-Canada stock.
BtL:Again, this would have happened regardless. And who the hell advised that? I mean, really? What were they thinking? It absolutely boggles my mind.
Twink:Well, the fine folks over at Petro-Can are thrilled now that the government is out of their hair once and for all. But the thing is that oil prices have already started creeping back upward in response to Bush's reelection. Kerry was interested in other energy sources -- not clean ones, mind you, but coal. Kerry wanted to revitalize the US domestic coal industry so as not to be so reliant on Middle Eastern oil. This would have kept oil prices from going through the roof. Bush, on the other hand, is interested in oil, period, and is also interested in having Americans drive large, fuel-inefficient cars (e.g. the tax credit for SUV purchasers). Under four more years of his rule, oil prices will, I think, remain very high.
BtL: This is another reason to be a Kerry backer in Canada. One hoped that under him the environment would be mentioned, and not in the same breath as "raped". I don’t think we’ve really hashed out what the effect of high oil prices on gov-free-Petro-Can / Canada Proper will be. Enlighten me, where are you going with this?
Twink:Canada will get on its knees and... well, anyway. We'll sign on to the Star Wars thing.
BtL:I'm still holding out for some sense. We haven't signed on yet and maybe Martin will have the balls to tell the US to shove those missiles up their... well, anyway, that we won't sign on. My biggest hope here is that as the gulf between Canada and the US widens in both domestic and foreign policies we'll be less and less likely to just do whatever the US tells us to. While I think it's sad that our national identity wavers between "We're the polite and morally superior US" to "We're not the US" I think more distance between our two countries is paramount. And something like this, which in no way, shape or form lines up with Canadian values, should be laughed at given the scorn it deserves. We don't want nukes, but space rockets are Ok?
Twink:I'm not nearly as optimistic as you. If Kerry had been elected, our government wouldn't feel like it has to toady up to the US to make up for Iraq. But Bush was reelected and I think Martin, what with his minority government and all, is going to have to gear up to suck some big fat American... well, anyway. They don't like vulgarity on this forum.
I agree with you as far as cultural distance is concerned. I think many Canadians (actually, most Canadians) indentify strongly with those on what the Americans laughably call their "left"
BtL I’m optimistic because that’s all I have Did you catch Graham’s comments on this? That "[Canada] has to sign on or there will be consequences." What, exactly, are these consequences? If we accommodate the US on this issue, what do we get out of it? The only thing in favour of it that I see is that the US is going to go forward on this with or without us. The only way we can have any input into the missiles that are going to be flying through Canadian airspace is if we’re onboard to begin with. Perhaps this is the consequence? Of course, this doesn’t make me love it any more. If we do let this happen we’d better not have to offer up a dime. Enough that we hand over some land and swallow... our pride.
Twink:The government will allow foreign ownership of water rights, at which time the United States will promptly buy up all of our water.
BtL:Again, this would likely have happened regardless of who the president was. It'll be an interesting one, because I suspect that Canadians will fight it tooth and nail.
Twink:I dunno about that. You yourself pointed out that Kerry would have been more of a protectionist, and I think that might well have resulted in us becoming somewhat more protectionist ourselves. It's a big deal, but I haven't seen the kind of furor over it that there ought to be...
BtL: Dude, I think you’re deluding yourself if you think there’s any hope in hell of holding onto our water. There have been rumblings about it, but the only states to experience droughts have been small and without much of an impact on the electorate. A president can ignore Iowa. When California has its first major drought (and it will, their reserves are dropping every year.) it’s going to be a different story. It’s harder to ignore a state that has a higher population and higher GDP than our country combined. It is going to happen, and it’s going to be ugly. Weee!
posted
Okay, now that the previous posts contain a recap of our conversation, I’ll just respond in one large lump.
-
Regarding our own Patriot act type laws, I completely agree with you. I don’t know what we can do about it, though, because it just isn’t on the national radar (which, in and of itself, is quite terrifying). So you’re right, it’s fair to say we brought this upon ourselves.
-
I say that protectionism doesn’t bother me because when it comes to trade outside North America we are quite protectionist ourselves. Really, it isn’t free trade that I believe in, it’s fair trade. However, “fair trade” has become a buzzword for hippies, so I try to avoid using it.
In any case, I think the Martin government is moving to mitigate American influence on our market somewhat by intensifying trade with China. Unfortunately they seem okay with the idea of selling the rights to our natural resources to the Chinese (not to mention the Americans, on the water front), which in my view is taking it much too far. Our resources are one key area in which I think we absolutely have to be protectionist, because when the rights and resources are gone they don’t come back.
Also, the Northwest Passage is opening up? Whoa. How did I miss hearing about this? Perhaps it hit the news while I was frolicking about in New Zealand.
Anyway, natural resources ties into what I was getting at earlier re: oil, which is to say that Bush has completely wrecked any future hope of practicing any sort of environmental conservation in America. He has basically allowed the energy industry to write his government’s environmental policies (what’s sad is that I’m not even kidding, we’re talking verbatim, copy-paste, here in some cases), and has eviscerated the agency that used to protect federally-owned lands from roads, logging, et cetera. That damage has been done and is now irreparable. My fear is that Canada will see this and think “we must do the same in order to remain competitive.”
-
On the subject of missile defence (what a laughable term), yeah. I think the attitude of the government is that since they’re going to do it anyway, we may as well suck up to them and earn some brownie points along the way. But it infuriates me that they’re going ahead with this multi-billion-dollar, wholly-non-functional system.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
