Talk politics.

Oh, they've tried (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812). They don't want to see their White House burned down again.

From:

US soldiers really don't want to spend the winter occupying Winnipeg.

(deleted comment)

From:

That might be a good way to boost enlistment rates. "Join the Army for a 4 year term and get a guaranteed 6 months occupation of Cancun!"

From:

You might have to occupy Cancun.

Japan and Turkey form an alliance to attack the US. Poland becomes America’s closest ally. Mexico makes a bid for global supremacy, and a third world war takes place in space. Sounds strange? It could all happen. . . (http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2009/08/power-china-world-japan-poland)

Book: The Next 100 Years (http://www.stratfor.com/next100years).
Author: George Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman).

You must've heard about him.

(deleted comment)

From:

Dude, he lives in the 19th century. He wouldn't read a book about the 22nd century.

From:

Actually I've read the entire Dune series and all the prequels. That's beyond the 22nd Century by far. I might note that most of the Star Trek novels I've read have also been execrable.

From:

mrsilence.livejournal.com

Speaking of 'socialist utopias'....

From:

Shh....don't inject that kind of logic and reason into the minds of Heinlein fans (though my personal and more cynical view of the future sees it as more akin to that story where people fight "bug wars" but the "bugs" are hallucinogenic distorted versions of people from other colonies).

From:

Japan and Turkey? O.X How the hell?

Nah, the next big war the USA would be likely to get into is another Mexican intervention. My preferred vision of the future, though, is this one:

http://www.dunenovels.com/

From:

Maybe if you read the book you'd get familiar with the author's arguments.

From:

We tried that twice. Both times they booted us out on our asses.......

From:

This "socialist" stuff has always been silly, unless by "socialist" people now mean that Canadians believe in putting out fires (unlike some Americans (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101005/pl_yblog_upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate)).

It's generally fueled by ignorance. Americans don't know much about Canadians, because there's no need to. It's a stable relationship built over a very long time and doesn't require most people to worry about it or even pay attention to it. That's great almost all of the time, but it does leave public perception open to some whackjob on Fox "News" talking about fictional 9/11 terrorists coming from Canada or the socialist government or what have you. Since people don't know much about it and there isn't an effective counter PR job from the ~~Government of Canada~~ Harper Government, it tends to stick.

But it's okay, because we'll still take your money at parity. ;)

From:

but it does leave public perception open to some whackjob on Fox "News" talking about fictional 9/11 terrorists coming from Canada

if it only it were only the whackjobs on Fox

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090424/mccain_mistake_090424/

From:

rasilio.livejournal.com

No, the problem with the use of the term Socialist is that what most people really mean is Collectivist or Corporatist as opposed to Individualist but they lack the knowledge and political vocabulary to properly say what they mean.

The simple fact is that using a strict definition of the word Socialism it basically does not exist any longer. You have essentially 2 Socialist countries (North Korea and Cuba)in existence and a single country moving in that direction (Venezuela) and there really aren't any politicians of any significance in any major nation proposing instituting Socialism.

From:

Of course if like me you feel that the strict definition of the word is the best definition of it, that is a point against socialism that onlu China, SE Asian countries, North Korea and Cuba still practice it.

From:

blorky.livejournal.com

*shrug* I self define as a conservative, and our 5 year plan is to move to Canada or NZ because American conservatism has abandoned common sense. Also, US Dollar FTL after being buttslammed by the Fed.

From:

Well first of all, I don't think Canada being left leaning means every policy they ever institute ever ever ever and forever is going to be some idealized liberal policy. I know that's not true.

Second, wage stagnation can happen for lots of reasons, some the government isn't even involved in at all. Yes, things happen that the government does not cause nor control, woah! :P

This little blurb seems too loaded with fallacies to say too much about.

From:

I don't think you read very carefully, perhaps in your eagerness to type "fallacies" or something.

Well first of all, I don't think Canada being left leaning means every policy they ever institute ever ever ever and forever is going to be some idealized liberal policy. I know that's not true.

Well, the Cowen article claimed that right wing policies weren't too blame because "right wingers" don't run Canada. The main point is that in fact right wing policies were being vigorously enacted throughout that period. Arguably, in fact, policies that were more right wing than the economic policies of GWB I or II's administration.

Note that the observation is that there's a single counterexample to the claim that Canada is left leaning, the point is that the policies throughout those years were solidly conservative. And that secondly, on a large number of key economic measures, Canada just doesn't fit the left wing stereotype.

Second, wage stagnation can happen for lots of reasons, some the government isn't even involved in at all. Yes, things happen that the government does not cause nor control, woah! :P

Of course, the point is that the "class struggle" reason, as Cowen calls it, can't be dismissed with a simplistic observation that Canada wasn't ruled by the "Republican Right", not that there's only one reason for wage stagnation.

This little blurb seems too loaded with fallacies to say too much about.

I call bullshit, substantiate your claim or retract.

From:

s/that the observation is that there's/that the observation isn't that there's/

From:

Well, the Cowen article claimed that right wing policies weren't to blame because "right wingers" don't run Canada.

Assumption that everything CURRENTLY done in canada then is liberal.

Of course, the point is that the "class struggle" reason, as Cowen calls it, can't be dismissed with a simplistic observation that Canada wasn't ruled by the "Republican Right", not that there's only one reason for wage stagnation.

See, that's still the assumption that because canada is not currently ruled by the "republican right" that conservative policies can't exist.

I call bullshit, substantiate your claim or retract.

That's the rest of the stuff I typed, calm down phideaux, it's not a personal attack. @.@

From:

Oh, I thought you were saying my post was full of fallacies, if you're talking about Cowen, fire away. :)

From:

Nah, Cowen's blurb. I think he makes too many assumptions to really draw any sort of realistic conclusion. Basically, I agree with your comment about people not really understanding Canada.

From:

From:

luvdovz.livejournal.com

Obviously that glass is half-empty.

From:

With vodka, I call that optimism.

From:

luvdovz.livejournal.com

I call it trouble.

From:

I would say that glass has 50% of it containing dihydrogen monoxide, a most pernicious solvent.

From:

It surely does sound scary!

From:

green-man-2010.livejournal.com

Surely , that is Hydrogen Monoxide - a very deadly chemical that has proven deadly to most life forms , including humans - only fish can stand long term exposure to it !

From:

malasadas.livejournal.com

DIhydrogen monoxide.

From:

farchivist.livejournal.com

From the conspiracy RPG known as Over The Edge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_the_Edge_%28game%29), about the conspiracy organization called "The Pharaohs":

In the meantime, the Pharaohs had arranged the discovery and colonization of the New World, seeing to it that religious misfits, debtors, and desperate adventurers came to populate the northern continent. The Pharaohs arranged the slaughter of the natives so as to have a land without history where they would have maximum power to experiment. (The scheme to mix New and Old World cultures in South America failed miserably.)

The North Americans were divided into two groups, the United States and the Canadians. The US was then subject to intense manipulation in an attempt to advance science and social “progress” as fast as the population could stand it. The Canadians, meanwhile, served as a control group (similar background, culture, and physical environment, without the intense manipulation). If the maniacally advancing technology and upheavals in social traditions in the US brought about its downfall, the Pharaohs would be able to use the Canadians to step in and carry on the experiment.

At present, the US has served its purpose. It has produced technology capable of destroying the world, altering genetic structures, reaching the moon, and more. Just as important, it has failed to develop a social structure capable of handling this power. The Pharaohs can use the technology without any threat from the bewildered and paranoid mutants who dominate the world.

Yeah, I consider Canada to pretty much be the 'control group' for the USA.

From:

Hmm, yeah, this seems like a pretty plausible explanation.

From:

green-man-2010.livejournal.com

Can someone who understands both systems explain the essential differences between the UK and canada to a poor ignorant Limey like me, please?

I mean, does their health care work? Do the trains run on time when it snows?
i imagine that the hospitals are ok and that they trains do run . I also know for sure that despite our best efforts , our system sucks and I wonder what we can learn from these wonderful Canadians.

From:

Canada's health care system differs in that there is no option to jump the queue for private services, there's just a single system for all, it's need rather than means based. That's a matter of some controversy as paying for health services, with some exceptions, is illegal.

From:

blue-mangos.livejournal.com

Not everywhere. Each province has their own health care system. In Ontario you can also pay to belong to private health clinics where you don't have to wait for any tests or appointments like under the givernment health plan.

From:

Yes, each province administers their own health care system but they're each constrained by the Canada Health Care Act, which forbids user fees so far as I understand. I know that that's been a matter of controversy and that Alberta was pushing against it, I don't know anything about these private clinics in Ontario, can you point me to more information. Why wouldn't they be in violation of the CHA?

From:

It's only in violation of the CHA if Ottawa enforces the CHA, which they haven't done a very good job of for a couple of years.

From:

blue-mangos.livejournal.com

Private clinics were brought in under Harris's Conservative government. The current McGuinty administration has tried to discourage this practice by limiting what the private clinics can charge people to no more than what OHIP would pay. It looks like the way they get around that is membership fees. My boss belongs to one and she pays $1800/year just to belong, then pays the OHIP rate for any visits/tests.

From:

Oh, wow, I lived in Ontario when Harris was around, guess there's no excuse for my not knowing about them. Maybe I just blocked it.

From:

harry-beast.livejournal.com

Private clinics are allowed in Quebec and in BC. I have never heard of any in Ontario.

From:

allhatnocattle.livejournal.com

Passenger train service costs way too much for me to find out if they run on time.

No healthcare system is without faults. There's some very whiney folks complaining about ours. Some are actually more then justified. But most are just shooting from the hip. (http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2011/03/06/17516941.html) I have no complaints about our healthcare.

From:

telemann.livejournal.com

My family is Canadian, I have never, ever, ever heard one peep from ANY of them about it, in fact-- they're very proud of their system).

From:

And a number of us aren't happy. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/andre-picard/health-system-makes-a-mockery-of-medicare-values/article1935582/)

In my case it takes 3 weeks to get a doctors appointment. The usual response from people around me? "You have a doctor? You're lucky!"

A huge percentage of the city of Fredericton has NO family doctor. When the reaction to a wait that long to get the most basic of medical services is that I'm lucky to have access to them at all, something is seriously wrong. There's a disconnect between what Canadians think of health care and what it's really turned into.

From:

Ah, Canada, where their failure would be pretty damn good by the standard of the rest of the world. I find it amusing that Canada's got the better military record and economic situation of the two countries but we Yanks tend to dismiss them. And thank you for pointing out that addressing economic injust =/= to Gosplan. It's a point too subtle for the Ameriright, unfortunately.

From:

rasilio.livejournal.com

One problem with your analysis

"Canada is not ruled by the so-called Republican Right.""

Does not in any way shape or form equate to...

"Canada as market hater"

His argument was not that there was no market oriented policy, his argument was that policy in the defined time period was not exclusively market oriented, he then goes on to add additional data points showing how the actual measured data do not support the class struggle explanation except for possibly 3 years during that period.

As far as Canada's more "right wing" government it is mostly an illusion. All of those numbers presented at the Cato article are nice and they do illustrate that Canada has been far more fiscally responsible but they have 2 flaws.

First, when it talks about tax rates it is talking about top and average marginal tax rates. Marginal tax rates are meaningless because I can design 3 different tax systems, one with a 2% marginal rate, one with a 40% marginal rate, and one with a 90% marginal rate and have all 3 collect the exact same number of dollars from a person. You also need to consider deductions, exemptions, accounting rules for what constitutes income vs capital gains and within capital gains a profit vs a loss, how many years one can depreciate capital expenditures over, and how much flexibility one has in determining when to realize a capital gain. The only meaningful comparison of taxes would be to compare the effective tax rate which is the actual taxes paid divided by the income earned regardless of how the tax or income were calculated. Problem is this is a MUCH more difficult number to calculate.

Second, Canada and the US now spend about the same percentage of GDP on Government true. However there is one key difference Canada is not paying to maintain the World Police force. Now of course this is a good thing, the US should not be spending anywhere near as much as it does on it's military but as long as we are doing so there will correspondingly less money available for provision of social services in the US than in Canada, even with the same level of government spending.

From: