monk222: (Noir Detective)
There is today in Canada a dangerous line of argument that must be checked by all thinking citizens: It holds that “Canada” is somehow “tired” of Quebec and the Quebec question, and might therefore wish to “expel” Quebec from the Canadian federation if push comes to shove. The mirror image of this argument comes from the “purs et durs” in Quebec, who believe that a newly sovereign Quebec, in the aftermath of a winning referendum, could naturally negotiate, égal à égal, with “Canada” for some species of peaceable and prosperous coexistence.

Both presumptions are pure sophistries. Why? Because Canada, as a recognizable geopolitical entity, will not exist — period — in the aftermath of the separation of Quebec.


-- Irvin Studin at The Star

Is the Quebec question really big, or is it just a slow news day in Canada? Although it might always be a Canadian issue, I have thought that it is probably analogous to the way some Texans like to shout about seceding from the United States, that it is more about posturing and getting some attention than anything else.


_ _ _

Here’s the rub that the sophists need to understand: Canada is and has always been a political enterprise in which the terms of engagement between the various parts and groupings of citizens were originally negotiated, continue to be negotiated and, if the project is to persist, will need to be continuously renegotiated. That’s what politics has always been about in Canada! And this is very much by original design. To be Canadian, therefore — whether one is from Quebec City, Toronto, Yellowknife or Banff — is to agree to participate in, argue about and be bound by this political process in the expectation that it leads to a better general welfare.

[...]

Why continue to fight for Canada as a political community? The defensive logic is counterintuitive, but powerful: the collapse of Canada, which surely would follow the separation of Quebec, would be one of the most important strategic and economic shocks of this early 21st century. Canada has four of the world’s 10 strongest banks, according to Bloomberg Markets Magazine. It consistently ranks among the top-five countries in the world in terms of oil, natural gas, uranium and timber production. It is a top-10 agricultural powerhouse. It has the longest coastline in the world, bordering three different oceans, with its Arctic border about to open in order to usher in one of the most important “great games” of this new century: the race for Arctic resources, which interests all of the world’s major powers. And, of course, the country is deeply integrated into the massive American economy, with American dependence on, and vulnerability to, Canadian economic performance or underperformance — and more basically, Canada’s very existence — not to be underestimated. In short, in modern economic parlance, Canada is “too big to fail.” Its collapse would first shock North America, and then it would shock the world. A post-Canadian Quebec would surely be a far diminished economic and political unit for this shock. Even if it survives territorially intact, it would have no strong or coherent “Canada” with which to negotiate. Geopolitically, it would struggle to be taken seriously by the major countries, from the U.S. to Russia and China, that would surely be positioning themselves for advantage in the post-Canadian North American theatre. (See the current Chinese play on the smaller countries in the South China Sea for a prologue of what would come.) The rest of Canada’s erstwhile units, including Alberta and Ontario, would not necessarily fare much better — at least in the medium-run.

-- Irvin Studin at The Star

monk222: (Noir Detective)
There is today in Canada a dangerous line of argument that must be checked by all thinking citizens: It holds that “Canada” is somehow “tired” of Quebec and the Quebec question, and might therefore wish to “expel” Quebec from the Canadian federation if push comes to shove. The mirror image of this argument comes from the “purs et durs” in Quebec, who believe that a newly sovereign Quebec, in the aftermath of a winning referendum, could naturally negotiate, égal à égal, with “Canada” for some species of peaceable and prosperous coexistence.

Both presumptions are pure sophistries. Why? Because Canada, as a recognizable geopolitical entity, will not exist — period — in the aftermath of the separation of Quebec.


-- Irvin Studin at The Star

Is the Quebec question really big, or is it just a slow news day in Canada? Although it might always be a Canadian issue, I have thought that it is probably analogous to the way some Texans like to shout about seceding from the United States, that it is more about posturing and getting some attention than anything else.


_ _ _

Here’s the rub that the sophists need to understand: Canada is and has always been a political enterprise in which the terms of engagement between the various parts and groupings of citizens were originally negotiated, continue to be negotiated and, if the project is to persist, will need to be continuously renegotiated. That’s what politics has always been about in Canada! And this is very much by original design. To be Canadian, therefore — whether one is from Quebec City, Toronto, Yellowknife or Banff — is to agree to participate in, argue about and be bound by this political process in the expectation that it leads to a better general welfare.

[...]

Why continue to fight for Canada as a political community? The defensive logic is counterintuitive, but powerful: the collapse of Canada, which surely would follow the separation of Quebec, would be one of the most important strategic and economic shocks of this early 21st century. Canada has four of the world’s 10 strongest banks, according to Bloomberg Markets Magazine. It consistently ranks among the top-five countries in the world in terms of oil, natural gas, uranium and timber production. It is a top-10 agricultural powerhouse. It has the longest coastline in the world, bordering three different oceans, with its Arctic border about to open in order to usher in one of the most important “great games” of this new century: the race for Arctic resources, which interests all of the world’s major powers. And, of course, the country is deeply integrated into the massive American economy, with American dependence on, and vulnerability to, Canadian economic performance or underperformance — and more basically, Canada’s very existence — not to be underestimated. In short, in modern economic parlance, Canada is “too big to fail.” Its collapse would first shock North America, and then it would shock the world. A post-Canadian Quebec would surely be a far diminished economic and political unit for this shock. Even if it survives territorially intact, it would have no strong or coherent “Canada” with which to negotiate. Geopolitically, it would struggle to be taken seriously by the major countries, from the U.S. to Russia and China, that would surely be positioning themselves for advantage in the post-Canadian North American theatre. (See the current Chinese play on the smaller countries in the South China Sea for a prologue of what would come.) The rest of Canada’s erstwhile units, including Alberta and Ontario, would not necessarily fare much better — at least in the medium-run.

-- Irvin Studin at The Star

monk222: (OMFG: by iconsdeboheme)
“For the first time in recent history, the average Canadian is richer than the average American.”

-- Stephan Marche

So, what is supposed to be the big advantage in America's more ruthless capitalism? Of course, it is that the rich are richer in America - yay for freedom! Good for the rich, but what about us? To which the rich would say, "What about you?"

In the linked article exploring the issue, it is noted that, in terms of median income, America actually trails behind every developed nation in the world except Sweden and Denmark. Moreover, "The UK, Japan, Italy (!) and Australia more than double the U.S. median." I love the exclamation mark next to Italy. Seriously, this makes me wonder about the statistic. I tend to think of Italy has being a little third-worldish, but they actually double our median income figure!? I guess America may be even more third-worldish.

One could wish that this would administer a wake-up call to Americans, that we are not the best and richest in the world, like a rude electric shock, but I am afraid that they would say this is what happens when you elect a socialist Kenyan to the White House, and that we need to favor the rich even more! Well, this is why I cannot take politics very seriously anymore, regarding it as the tragic theater of the absurd, as with life in general.
monk222: (OMFG: by iconsdeboheme)
“For the first time in recent history, the average Canadian is richer than the average American.”

-- Stephan Marche

So, what is supposed to be the big advantage in America's more ruthless capitalism? Of course, it is that the rich are richer in America - yay for freedom! Good for the rich, but what about us? To which the rich would say, "What about you?"

In the linked article exploring the issue, it is noted that, in terms of median income, America actually trails behind every developed nation in the world except Sweden and Denmark. Moreover, "The UK, Japan, Italy (!) and Australia more than double the U.S. median." I love the exclamation mark next to Italy. Seriously, this makes me wonder about the statistic. I tend to think of Italy has being a little third-worldish, but they actually double our median income figure!? I guess America may be even more third-worldish.

One could wish that this would administer a wake-up call to Americans, that we are not the best and richest in the world, like a rude electric shock, but I am afraid that they would say this is what happens when you elect a socialist Kenyan to the White House, and that we need to favor the rich even more! Well, this is why I cannot take politics very seriously anymore, regarding it as the tragic theater of the absurd, as with life in general.
monk222: (Noir Detective)
Winnipeg does know they are known as the armpit of Canada, though, right? I have never, ever heard a good thing about that place.

-- ONTDer

Apparently actor Rob Lowe got into a little squabble with the city of Winnipeg while he was there shooting a made-for-TV movie. Although it is not clear if it's fair, he is held to have said that Winnipeg is a hellhole. He may have been talking about something else. Though, I guess it is not terribly unlikely that he was speaking of Winnipeg, even if only as a careless American. Ah, those Sugar days!
monk222: (Noir Detective)
Winnipeg does know they are known as the armpit of Canada, though, right? I have never, ever heard a good thing about that place.

-- ONTDer

Apparently actor Rob Lowe got into a little squabble with the city of Winnipeg while he was there shooting a made-for-TV movie. Although it is not clear if it's fair, he is held to have said that Winnipeg is a hellhole. He may have been talking about something else. Though, I guess it is not terribly unlikely that he was speaking of Winnipeg, even if only as a careless American. Ah, those Sugar days!
monk222: (Mori: by tiger_ace)
I suppose it is only fair to say that Canada is considered to be one of the happier cases when it comes to integrating minorities into their society, but even the Canadians are having to deal with the international phenomenon of radicalized Muslim youth. I only wonder if this is still a growing phenomenon, or is it outdated reporting?

Is it too happy to think that Islamism has been flatlining? Is one getting carried away that there has not been any significant attacks in our country? Though, there is the new scare report about credible intelligence that Islamists are considering surgically implanted bombs to get around our heightened airport security. And lord knows that the Middle East is still boiling over and the developing tendencies do not look very promising.

_ _ _

And herein lies a common misconception amongst “mainstream” Canadians: They’re convinced that, in the average Muslim household, it’s the parent who represents conservatism and tradition, and the Canadian-born children who are modern and fighting against this oppression. This is a falsehood.

Many of our parents, who immigrated here from Muslim countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, did so specifically out of their respect for Western values. Elder Muslims may be modest and socially conservative in their personal lives. But, by and large, the parents in Muslim-Canadian households believe in the core values of this society. Their values systems were not based on religion but on political freedom and the desire to separate religion and state.

It’s their children – in desperate need for identity – who have turned to conservative, hard-line and politicized Islam for the answers. This trend to embrace a politicized Islam has led to bloodshed in many parts of the world and is growing rapidly – and going unchecked – in Canada.

...

Muslim youth have fooled themselves into believing there was a golden age of Islam they’d like to bring back to Canada, a golden age that could bring us all into the Dark Ages. And their parents don’t know what to do.

-- NATASHA FATAH for The Globe and Mail

Boob Bombs )
monk222: (Mori: by tiger_ace)
I suppose it is only fair to say that Canada is considered to be one of the happier cases when it comes to integrating minorities into their society, but even the Canadians are having to deal with the international phenomenon of radicalized Muslim youth. I only wonder if this is still a growing phenomenon, or is it outdated reporting?

Is it too happy to think that Islamism has been flatlining? Is one getting carried away that there has not been any significant attacks in our country? Though, there is the new scare report about credible intelligence that Islamists are considering surgically implanted bombs to get around our heightened airport security. And lord knows that the Middle East is still boiling over and the developing tendencies do not look very promising.

_ _ _

And herein lies a common misconception amongst “mainstream” Canadians: They’re convinced that, in the average Muslim household, it’s the parent who represents conservatism and tradition, and the Canadian-born children who are modern and fighting against this oppression. This is a falsehood.

Many of our parents, who immigrated here from Muslim countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, did so specifically out of their respect for Western values. Elder Muslims may be modest and socially conservative in their personal lives. But, by and large, the parents in Muslim-Canadian households believe in the core values of this society. Their values systems were not based on religion but on political freedom and the desire to separate religion and state.

It’s their children – in desperate need for identity – who have turned to conservative, hard-line and politicized Islam for the answers. This trend to embrace a politicized Islam has led to bloodshed in many parts of the world and is growing rapidly – and going unchecked – in Canada.

...

Muslim youth have fooled themselves into believing there was a golden age of Islam they’d like to bring back to Canada, a golden age that could bring us all into the Dark Ages. And their parents don’t know what to do.

-- NATASHA FATAH for The Globe and Mail

Boob Bombs )
monk222: (Noir Detective)
Emotions are still a little raw after the Canadians got trounced in hockey, and one Canadian declared, "Also, the Bruins had more Canadian players and the Canucks more Americans so all this proves is that Canadians are better hockey players." An interesting point. But what they don't seem to understand is that in America we have a lot more opportunities to do other things besides hockey and dog-sledding. Besides, hockey is kind of a nasty game, people beating each other with sticks.

Macro Fun )
monk222: (Noir Detective)
Emotions are still a little raw after the Canadians got trounced in hockey, and one Canadian declared, "Also, the Bruins had more Canadian players and the Canucks more Americans so all this proves is that Canadians are better hockey players." An interesting point. But what they don't seem to understand is that in America we have a lot more opportunities to do other things besides hockey and dog-sledding. Besides, hockey is kind of a nasty game, people beating each other with sticks.

Macro Fun )
monk222: (Rainy: by snorkle_c)
Canadians like to imagine they are better than us, that, sure, Americans are richer, but they are also more beastly, while Canadians are so much more civilized and decent. Well, let them lose a hockey game, and the next thing you know:



The Vancouver Canucks lost to the Boston Bruins in the Stanley Cup. Imagine if they had something important to deal with!

(Source: ONTD/CBC)

A few more pics )
monk222: (Rainy: by snorkle_c)
Canadians like to imagine they are better than us, that, sure, Americans are richer, but they are also more beastly, while Canadians are so much more civilized and decent. Well, let them lose a hockey game, and the next thing you know:



The Vancouver Canucks lost to the Boston Bruins in the Stanley Cup. Imagine if they had something important to deal with!

(Source: ONTD/CBC)

A few more pics )
monk222: (Strip)
The Americans scored a goal in the last minute of regulation time to send the game into overtime and sudden death. The American goalie, Miller, could only fend off so many shots before the Canadians zinged one in.

There was no nap today, but I don't mind. I even caught a break, as Father and Lorie left for the afternoon, allowing me to enjoy the game on the big-screen TV.

That was fun, except for the last part. Tautly suspenseful all the way. I don't think I'm going to become a hockey fan, though. I'm sure it was all about the U.S.-Canada rivalry and playing for Olympic gold, and it helps that it is a fast-moving, rather hard-hitting game.
monk222: (Strip)
The Americans scored a goal in the last minute of regulation time to send the game into overtime and sudden death. The American goalie, Miller, could only fend off so many shots before the Canadians zinged one in.

There was no nap today, but I don't mind. I even caught a break, as Father and Lorie left for the afternoon, allowing me to enjoy the game on the big-screen TV.

That was fun, except for the last part. Tautly suspenseful all the way. I don't think I'm going to become a hockey fan, though. I'm sure it was all about the U.S.-Canada rivalry and playing for Olympic gold, and it helps that it is a fast-moving, rather hard-hitting game.
monk222: (Christmas)
I'm glad I checked that Yahoo page, informing us that the big U.S.-Canada game is going to start in half an hour. I thought it was going to begin this evening.

article )
monk222: (Christmas)
I'm glad I checked that Yahoo page, informing us that the big U.S.-Canada game is going to start in half an hour. I thought it was going to begin this evening.

article )
monk222: (Strip)
VANCOUVER — A sign at Canada Hockey Place read, "This is our game." But the Americans came into Canada's home and stole it Sunday by posting their first Olympic win over Canada in 50 years on a 5-3 decision.

-- Kevin Allen for USA Today

Oh, that has to hurt!

I'd rather have health care, but ouch! I guess there's alway curling.
monk222: (Strip)
VANCOUVER — A sign at Canada Hockey Place read, "This is our game." But the Americans came into Canada's home and stole it Sunday by posting their first Olympic win over Canada in 50 years on a 5-3 decision.

-- Kevin Allen for USA Today

Oh, that has to hurt!

I'd rather have health care, but ouch! I guess there's alway curling.
monk222: (Noir Detective)
In the health care debate, Andrew Sullivan quotes a reader who is a Canadian living in the States who has a strikiing observation to make:

As a Canadian living in the States, it's been interesting to watch as more and more Americans become aware of their deteriorating healthcare system. For me, it's meant an ever-increasing trickle of people (of broader and broader political perspectives, I might add) who come to me to talk about Canada's system. I begin every conversation the same way: Both systems have their flaws. You'll find unhappy people in both systems. The truest non-empirical test I have is to point out that I have known many people who have lived in both systems (i.e., Canadian and American), and I still have never met a single person who preferred the American one.
That might not be convincing to the Republicans since the people who have lived in Canada can't be counted as true Americans, but the pressure for change seems to be only building. These are interesting times.
monk222: (Noir Detective)
In the health care debate, Andrew Sullivan quotes a reader who is a Canadian living in the States who has a strikiing observation to make:

As a Canadian living in the States, it's been interesting to watch as more and more Americans become aware of their deteriorating healthcare system. For me, it's meant an ever-increasing trickle of people (of broader and broader political perspectives, I might add) who come to me to talk about Canada's system. I begin every conversation the same way: Both systems have their flaws. You'll find unhappy people in both systems. The truest non-empirical test I have is to point out that I have known many people who have lived in both systems (i.e., Canadian and American), and I still have never met a single person who preferred the American one.
That might not be convincing to the Republicans since the people who have lived in Canada can't be counted as true Americans, but the pressure for change seems to be only building. These are interesting times.
Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 09:42 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios