Two Canada stories are hitting the news today. Both indicate that our neighbors in the Great White North are sending a big "Screw You" to the people of the United States. I'd think it were really funny, if I weren't one of those people. Anyway...
Story #1: Canada Approves Same-Sex Marriage. I'm not really obsessed with gay stories or gay rights. I feel strongly about it, but it doesn't usually enter my mind on a daily basis. Mostly I've been reporting and commenting on the news of the day, and thanks to 2004's GOP "Get Out the Vote" effort, it's been in the news a lot. Anystuff, in a story that should sound familiar to Americans (and by that I mean United States of Americans), Canadian courts ruled that the Canadian constitution would not allow barring gays from marrying. But instead of going all reactionary and passing constitutional amendments banning them from marrying or entering into contracts with each other "conferred upon unmarried couples", Canada's legislature decided to pass a law allowing and regulating gay marriage. It's a ballsy move, and I'm sure the wannabe theocrats there won't stop fighting. However, it's a popular initiative in Canada, despite what the so-called liberal CNN says about "fierce opposition". It's pretty clear that despite the widespread support, the timing is somewhat of a reaction to the US's fear campaign against gay marriage. Since the start of the Iraq war, Canada has been looking for ways to be morally superior to the US, and now latched on to one.
Story #2: Canada to consider export ban on drugs. This whole prescription drug thing has been like a bad conspiracy against Americans. The Bush administration and Republican congressmen try to ban it with a wide range of excuses, including "the drugs from Canada aren't safe". So now the Canadian government is tired of taking abuse and is saying, "You know what? Screw you. I'm taking my drugs and going home." Their reason? Because Canada might run out of medicine. Riiight. Canadians get a discount because their government is buying drugs in bulk, yet they're worried about a shortage? More likely they're worried about the drug companies refusing to sell to them, emboldened by the Bush Administration's willingness to protect them. So we all suffer, and pay more for drugs in the US, subsidizing the rest of the world because our politicians are so busy being in bed with drug reps that they didn't notice they pissed off the people supplying us with cheap pharmaceuticals.
So the land of ice, beer, and beaver skins is growing a national identity, and, surprise!, it's being defined by being the anti-US. Good for them. Canada's acting more American than us lately anyway. They're acting more like the prototypical pioneers - people who lived and let live and minded their own business - instead of mountain men of the Appalachians - squabbling, starting feuds, and drinking. Maybe the cold makes them smarter. Maybe it just means they don't have the patience to sit around wasting time on stupid stuff. At least they never lost a governor to the debate about whether a treasonous flag was "heritage" or "racist".
24 comments:
Too freakin' cold. Besides, we're too busy trying to recreate it here.
They have such a great health care system up there! Sure, you may die while waiting for surgery, but at least rich people would also have to die. Not that I'm saying ours is perfect, either.
And Scott, don't forget they have this little problem with fighting, too. The Quebec thing might turn into a split.
I kind of wondered if cold weather made people smarter too, so I was intrigued by your title. Maybe they should do a study.
Go Canada!
I wonder how much closer to America most western countries would be if they had to defend themselves, instead of depending on the US for security?
Well, first of all, Canada has never used the US to defend it. In fact, the only country it has ever had to defend itself against was...the United States.
Second, I never was cheering Canada for being "anti-American" in the sense that they espoused valued antithetical to Americans. I said they were anti-US, meaning the policies of this corrupt government.
Third, I was kidding in my response to Mike. He's the one who said "liberals think Canada is so great". I don't want to move to Canada, nor do I really want to recreate it here. (Despite that I will contributing to the French-Canadian economy in September, doing my patriotic duty to get my friend Dave drunk)
Fourth, I don't hate Canada, either, which is obviously not your views. It's so like Conservatives to hate people that aren't exactly like them.
OK - back on topic. Why is that the Conservative position? That smacks of socialized medicine to me - we won't let the free market work because we have to only get medicine approved and regulated by our government? Nobody forces the pharmaceutical companies to charge less in Canada, they choose to do so if they want to sell to the government health care there. In the US, ironically, there are no free market forces governing drugs before they go generic.
As to the FDA safety - nobody would be forcing you to get drugs from Canada. If you wanted to get FDA approved drugs you could. If you wanted to get Health Canada approved drugs you could.
As to "undermining pharmaceutical research", since when was it the conservative position that we had to subsidize companies - that we didn't let the free market do its job? If they make good drugs, they'll get profits. I seem to remember you saying you were against any government funded medical research. Why? You said "You would be surprised, some people would actually do research for free like the old days just because they wanted to find a cure". How does this jive with the fact that you want to force me to give the pharm companies profits?
Economic lesson #12: fixed vs variable costs. Research+marketing(much more than research)=fixed cost. if you sell 0 drugs or 1 billion drugs, the research and marketing cost is the same.
Manufacturing=variable cost. If you go to market, the more you make, the higher these costs.
So, a) you have to cover your manufacturing costs to stay in business, period. b) Any money you make over your variable costs can be applied to your fixed cost. Free market philosophy: it's your own damn problem to cover your fixed costs. If you have a good enough product, you can sell enough to cover your fixed costs. If you don't, you can't.
Getting the American public to subsidize your research: $billions. Using your monopoly status to force the same American public to buy your product at whatever price you ask: Priceless
Who says I hate Canadians? Talk about a straw man arguement. I think that it's a bad idea to copy their system of health care, which is falling apart, and that becomes hatred? Talk about extreme rhetoric.
Canada has never had to ask us to defend them? NATO, my friend. Stop the lying.
Anyway, neglecting all the mutual defense treaties we have, which basically call on the US to protect everyone else, they never have to ask us to defend them because they know we'll do it anyway, which is also why no one has ever attacked them. Any enemy knows they would have the US on their asses in no time.
"What we hate is when people think it's a good idea to take away our freedom and meddle with our religion." Hey, Mike, isn't that exactly what the conservatives are trying to do to the rest of the country? They think that the only things that should be said are the ones that THEY agree with and the only religion that should be supported is their own. The Patriot Act took away some of our freedoms and that was championed by conservatives as being patriotic. And as far as religion goes, it is the conservatives that are pushing to have Christian values taught in schools and Christian rules posted in government buildings and to hell with letting people choose their own religion and feeling safe in doing so.
I don't see how keeping religion out of government is any different than keeping government out of religion. It's one and the same. Keeping religion out of government means my public, AKA government, schools don't force me to pray in school and don't tell me that violence or sex are un-Christian and cannot be broadcast. It means my goverment courthouses should not have any religious symbols, whether they be the 10 Commandments, Buddha, or a Golden Cow. Your example of keeping government out of religion already exists, and exists for the same reasons that the above things should not be allowed. Courts cannot make religious rulings that a church must allow a gay marriage, for the same reason that they can't rule that a synagogue must marry a Jew and non-Jew even if the religious belief of the synagogue goes against this. If courts did this, they would be religious courts, much like they have in Iran. My philosophy, and I believe this is precisely the spirit of the 1st amendment, is that people should be free to practice whatever religion they like, as long as they aren't imposing it on each other. Using the government to impose religion is the same as a private group doing it, and should not be allowed.
As for Canada, Canada rocks! I am American, but am pretty offended that you would say Canada is just getting their identity. They have always had a unique identity, different from the US. I don't think the gay marriage thing has anything to do with US politics; what does Canada care about marriage laws across the border? I agree though that it seems recently that Canada has more freedoms than the US, and not because the US has always been this way. The US used to be the beacon for personal freedoms and tolerance, unfortunately 5 years of this administration have eroded this image.
One more thing...lets say for example that gay marriage was legalized in the US. I can see many churches refusing to hold the ceremonies, and they would be right to do so. It may be legal in the US, but that doesn't mean it's legal in Christianity. That's for churches to decide. Gays would then be married in churches that recognized this law, or in a courthouse, or in a new Gay Christian congregation. Private country clubs can prohibit membership based on race, and a church can do the same thing based on sexual orientation
Argh...I get so sick of hearing people spread misinformation about our "deeply religious" founding fathers. Check out this post on the subject at Radical Georgia Moderate from earlier this year.
But I don't think they intended to have government agressively attack religion by removing its symbols from public view...
Bullshit. Nobody's telling you you can't have symbols displayed in church or on your property or anywhere else EXCEPT where my tax dollars are paying for it.
...preventing kids from praying in school...
Bullshit. The only thing that's being prevented is my taxpayer dollars being used to pay for a state-sanctioned prayer timeout. Teachers are paid to teach, not to babysit your kid while he or she prays. They're free to pray at lunch or recess or between classes or whenever they're not in class using up my taxpayer dollars.
...and forcing churches to marry gays against their beliefs.
Bullshit once more. If you're looking to Canada as an example, their legislation clearly states that churches can't be forced to perform marriages against their will. It's strictly a legal allowance. Anything that ever passes here will be the same.
Well said Rusty. I do not want to interpret the Constitution or make laws based on the type of people our founding fathers were. Some were slaveowners as well! I think you should interpret the Constitution as it's written, and that's all.
You can tell Northerners are smart by the fact that they avoid living in the South.
Yes, they are so smart that they freeze their asses off every winter.
Mike is right in that the Constitution provides for the government leaving religions alone, but not the other way around. On the other hand, I don't want religions mucking about in our government anyway. BUT... George Bush basing his decisions on his religious faith is not the same thing as religion getting involved in government. THat's merely George Bush making decisions based on his beliefs about the world, just as Clinton did. It's just that Bush is more influenced by his faith. But it has nothing to do wtih a theocracy, and it gives me fits when people accuse him of such. The only difference between him and CLinton in this respect is that Bush's morals were formed by 2000 years of Christianity, whereas Clinton's morals were formed by 50 years of rutting and power-grabbing. Some would even say that liberalism, with all its beliefs in things like global warming, despite unclear scientific evidence, is a religion as well. AFter all, you are making judgements based on faith, and not on clear, indisputable science.
I just don't understand why the context of the Founding Father's should dictate how we read, or interpret, the Constitution. They developed some powerful ideas based on a democratic philosophy but also held that my boss is 3/4 of a person and I'm not worthy of the vote. They weren't infallable, and I think the democratic philosophies they espoused have undone some of the prejudices they took for truth (aka slavery, the supremecy of the landowning class, etc).
Decisions, be they judicial, executive, or legeslative, should not be a matter of faith, but logic. I do not want my president consulting the Bible (or the Pope or the Dali Lama) to justify their decisions. A leader's view of the world should be informed by (note, not dictated by, but informed) perspective's different from their own. It's not that faith shouldn't influence a decision, but faith has been wrong before in matters of logic (You know, that whole earth is the center of the universe thing).
I appreciate Canada's social liberalism.
School prayer is not "allowing children" to pray, but "forcing children" to pray. I don't want my (theoretical) children to pray in school or to be austrisized for not praying.
What makes thie Constitition great is not that it requires our strict adherence to tradition and blind obedience to our fore fathers and mothers, but that it allows the country to grow and adapt to change. Any animal, or even business, for that matter, with out the ability to change and adapt is doomed to extinction...with the possible exception of sharks, or crocodiles, or Microsoft.
And may God have mercy upon the souls of Shannon's theoretical children. Bless what may very well have been their little hearts.
Rusty, I like you. That was some good Bullshit callin'!
He's good with the "goddamn's" too.
Bullshit Retort
#1: It's not just a matter of whether the display is paid for with public dollars, but whether the facility is. Would you be OK with me putting a "Clinton '08" sign in your front yard? No? Even if I paid for it?
#2: You're either deliberately or accidentally mixing up rumor, innuendo, and different aspects of debate.
#2a: Your two "incidents" are both undocumented rumors. In addition, assuming the stories are true, you imply that the person in charge was acting within the law. Certainly in the talent show case, the teacher was acting illegally. Is it now the official stated policy of the LAPD to beat on Black people just because one rogue cop did it? (OK, maybe that's a bad example)
#2b: The crucifix in urine was not about religion - it was about art funding and whether national votes should be taken on each piece of art funded just in case it happened to offend someone.
#2c: You've said this more than once - that the reason we don't want a theocracy is because we're afraid of our own sin. First of all, I don't believe in the concept of "sin" at all. Second of all, what we are afraid of is being persecuted by self-righteous bigots who think that they have the right to impose their version of religion on the rest of us.
#3: Somehow the Rush Limbaugh talking point about how if gay marriage is legalized, churches will be force to perform them. This is so far from any truth it can only insult peoples' intelligence. Are Catholic churches required to perform marriages on anyone who asks? Are any churches or synagogues required to perform marriages on any heterosexual couples that they don't want to? The answer is no. There are no laws of any kind requiring churches to perform any sort of religious ritual that they don't want to do. None. In fact, there are secial provisions in the tax code expressly saying that they are allowed to discriminate based on religion and still keep their 501(c)(3) status - something no ther organization can do. So this is just a scare tactic with absolutely no grounding in reality. Unless you can come up with one single documented instance of a church being forced to perform a religious rite against its will in the United States.
I just don't see what is so threatening about seeing a display of the ten commandments in a courthouse.
What's offensive, Mike, is when my tax dollars are used to sanction your fetish for worshiping fictional characters.
Judaism do not recognize our sinful nature. They do not judge and thus are deemed more tolerant by seculars.
Umm, what? Last time I checked, your religion came from the Jews. Did I miss the memo where Christians announced they were revoking the Old Testament?
Admit it, you hate the concept of an absolute truth. Because if you admit there is absolute right and wrong then you know that you automatically come down on the side of wrong. It's a perfectly human trait...flawed.
Soooo.....
Absolute truth is an infallible fairy in the sky created everything in six days and had to rest on the seventh? If he's infallible, why does he need to rest? For that matter, if all humanity came from two people in a garden, then wasn't the entire human race created with an orgy of incest that lasted for thousands of years? Isn't incest a sin? So, by your absolute morality, it's okay for me to fuck my mother, my grandmother, my sister and my daughter, but NOT my brother. OH NO, that'd be queer, and being queer is a sin.
If that's absolute morality then, yes, I guess that makes me a nihilistic atheistic moral relativist.
First of all, we aren't a world divided into Liberals vs. Conservatives. While all of us might have different views, we share more in common than apart. Instead of calling others names, pointing fingers and making false accusations, let's make this a rationale, adult-like conversation.
Mike, your most recent posting hit upon many different points, not all necessarily related; however, I would like to shed light and address each of your points.
Seeing the ten commandments in a courthouse isn't seen as a threat. It simply goes against everything this country is built upon--religious freedom. It's funny how quickly people tend to forget or be ignorant to our history. The Pilgrims who came to this country we're escaping religious persecution and seeking religious freedom.
Everybody passes judgment, it's just some people are more polite and discrete about it. Believe me, we all have opinions about each other. The Muslims judge the Christians just as much as the Christians judge the Jews. The Jews judge the Muslims, just as much as the Christians judge the Muslims. The difference is that some groups are more tolerant and open minded than others. It seems certain groups are able to see both view points. These other groups feel strongly about their own personal choice but they do not infringe on others' views, nor do they require others to partake in their religious beliefs (prayer in school, ten commandments at the courthouse).
You don't see Muslims praying or Menorahs at Hanukkah in a courthouse. Besides, Muslims don't ask that you fast with them and they surely don't request your company during their prayers. Jews don't ask that you light their menorah. Before I proceed, I want to distinguish between Christians and extreme Christians. Many Christians are loving people that support philanthropies and are strong leaders in peace loving organizations that support the betterment of all humankind and they raise wonderful children that are respectful of others. On the other hand, there are the extreme Christians. The extreme Christians insist that all residents of the U.S. read and believe in the 10 commandments every time they step foot into a courthouse (mind you a courthouse we all pay for through our taxes).
There are also extreme Muslims, also known as, terrorists. The difference between extreme Christians and extreme Muslims---Muslims use violence at all costs, even their own lives, to speak their religious beliefs. Extreme Christians try to take rights away from others, they protest and blow up abortion clinics, they pass judgment on gays (people whom they know very little about), they claim that they know who is going to heaven and hell (news flash - there's no proof there is a heaven or a hell, let alone a g-d who passes judgment the way these extreme Christians do so).
Why must right and wrong be defined as saved versus sin? Based on everyone's comments, we are all law abiding citizens. It's quite evident we all know right from wrong (according to the law).
By the way, I love how exterme Christians can commit every crime/sin in the book (sex before marriage, abortion, alcohilic, abuse) and then get saved, and all of a sudden they are a born-again, gosh-darn, good person. What about all the other people who had higher standards and morals their entire life?
Why are other people immoral? Because they don't have the same beliefs as you? Because they can see a human being behind each human face, rather than label them as a political party or a religion? Because they know how to live peacefully with others? Because they don't force their beliefs on others?
Absolute truth? No one on this planet knows what the absolute truth is. We each have our own "bible" that tells us right from wrong. Let's get real. You don't know how much more valid your "bible" is than anyone elses. What on earth are you going to do if you get to the gates of heaven and g-d tells you "tough shit Mike, you were following the wrong bible all this time. I'm G-d, I'm black and gay and 1/2 Muslim and 1/2 Jewish. Mike..I've got news for you...had you been a little more open minded, you could have entered heaven, but now you're going to HELL."
Mike, it sounds like you live your life in fear of hell, which you don't even know if it's real. All your posts make such inaccurate and unjust accusations. I am a very open-minded person and love that so many people can have different views. But everything you write is such trash.
Your comment about gays suing churches? When do you have time to make this stuff up? Many rabbis won't marry a Jew to a Non-Jew, Priests won't marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic, preachers won't marry a black to a white-----all these denials of marriage are no different than denying two loving and dedicated homosexuals a valid marriage ceremony. No one is suing anyone in any of these cases. All these people denied marriage by the religious authorities, they know better. They know they have their opinion of marriage, while the religious authorities have their opinion.
I think everyone understands the concept of cause and effect--it boils down to which effects you believe. Everyone knows if you don't water your plant, it dies; if you touch a hot curling iron, you get burnt. Liberals and Democrats will both argue to "Pull the troops out"---look at how many of our own men are dying on a daily basis. The US can only do so much to a country that doesn't want us there. Why should we keep letting our people die? Who said all Democrats say to "Leave social security alone?" And I've never heard Democrats say "keep God out of my life." I think it's more like "don't tell me what to believe in or how to express my religious beliefs."
Rock on Fay Ann!
One comment, to everyone I guess:
Don't all religions espouse the basic belief to love your neighbor and respect your fellow man?
It seems like the more religious people claim to be, the more they forget about this.
So right Dave!
And way to go Fay Ann.
Post a Comment