Moronic Canadian journalists attack Fox News (and America in general) and the networks viewers, tho they don't get Fox News, nor have they ever seen any of it. Yet, they keep reminding you- they're honest. Yea...honest people hate things before they can even get a chance to SEE THEM!!
As you can see from this article, this journalist in particular hates America. He calls talking to Americans a "tonic." Yeah, because we know you and all other Canadians are so wonderful. One thing about Americans- we don't blindly hate Canadians...too bad we can't say the same for you. Blind hatred is a true sign of stupidity. So, hate away!
Posted by Josh at April 30, 2004 03:37 AM | TrackBack"Moronic Canadian journalists attack Fox News (and America in general) and the networks viewers, tho they don't get Fox News, nor have they ever seen any of it"
- First off, you've only linked to an article by one John Doyle, so what is this "journalist's" (plural) all about?
- Second, your accusation that Mr. Doyle hasn't "seen any of it" was explicitly denied in the original article he wrote. Here's the quote: "Me, I've seen the Fox News Channel on visits to the United States".
(Link: http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles04190401.asp)
"Yet, they keep reminding you- they're honest."
- The word "honest" appears only once in the article you posted, and only from a quote by Bill O'Reilly. So, what exactly are you talking about?
"Yea...honest people hate things before they can even get a chance to SEE THEM!!"
- As previously noted, the author of the article has seen Fox News. You would do well to verify your facts before you make such bold declarations.
"As you can see from this article, this journalist in particular hates America."
- That article was in response to the hate mail he recieved for taking a light hearted stab at Fox News. Most of his derogatory comments are aimed specifically at those who emailed him obscene letters.
"He calls talking to Americans a "tonic"
- Again, if you had done a little more research (ie. read his orginal article) you would know that Mr. Doyle was most likely referencing a "bit" that Canadian comic Rick Mercer does entitled "Talking to Americans". So in that context, his comment is little more than a slight on the less educated Americans (like the ones who wrote him to complain about his orginal article). By the way, here's a a good outline of the whole O'Reilly/Doyle feud that includes some of the truly ignorant hate mail Mr. Doyle recieved:
(LINK:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/weekinreview/25krau.html)
"One thing about Americans- we don't blindly hate Canadians...too bad we can't say the same for you"
- I'm sure some Americans do. I'm sure some Canadians do as well.
"Blind hatred is a true sign of stupidity"
- Agreed.
Posted by: Lowdown at April 30, 2004 02:28 PMyoure truly no genius in the reasoning department, ill tell ya that much. i mean, lets be honest! i was referring to a number of incidents regarding canadians and journalists- i know you seem to think that i have to supply you with every piece of info on earth, and that you dont know the url google.com- and if i dont supply you with every piece of info that exists on a given topic, ive no idea what im talking about. like i said, thats genius reasoning.
not ALL canadians have seen fox news- most of them havent...not just talking about the writer here. tho, he, himself, says hes seen very little of, which is why he wants it to come to canada to see what its all about.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at April 30, 2004 06:30 PM"i was referring to a number of incidents regarding canadians and journalists"
- And I asked you what other journalists you were speaking of. You have yet to answer that qustion.
"i know you seem to think that i have to supply you with every piece of info on earth"
- I only asked you what other journalists you were referring to. If you don't want to go through the trouble of supporting an argument, there's probably no point in making one in the first place.
"if i dont supply you with every piece of info that exists on a given topic, ive no idea what im talking about"
- Where did I say this? I only asked you to support the claim than other journalists hate Fox News without "seeing it". Is this such an unfair demand?
"i said, thats genius reasoning"
- Who cares what it is, since no such thing was said?
"most of them havent...not just talking about the writer here"
- I don't feel you made that point clear. It seemed to me the implication was that the writer you linked to had not seen Fox News. If that's not the case, then what was the point of posting that link? If your argument is that Canadian journalists hate fox news without seeing it, shouldn't you post a link to one of them?
- What about your allegation that Mr. Doyle "hates america? After reading the evidence that suggests the contrary, do you still feel that way?
-------------------------------------------------
And finally, Josh, you're argument was this:
"Moronic Canadian journalists attack Fox News (and America in general) and the networks viewers, tho they don't get Fox News, nor have they ever seen any of it."
Yet, you haven't supplied any evidence to support the accusation. So, what do you hope to accomplish? Do you honestly believe that you can convince people that Canadian journalists are attacking Fox News without citing and facts?
Posted by: Lowdown at May 1, 2004 01:45 PMIt could have been worse..Mr. Doyle could have claimed child prostitution is legal in the US like some Fox News *cough* reporters have...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 3, 2004 11:18 AMcont..
...have claimed to be true in other countries, which was false.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 3, 2004 01:35 PMOk, now both of you quit it. HOODLUM, get off of your moral superiority soapbox. LOWDOWN - keep the accusations factual and specific; it is not hard to do. Hoodlum thinks you misstep by suggesting journalists (plural). True, you do only cite one, but, being a reasonable guy, and a guy who has read more than one article by one journalist in my lifetime, I was quite able to grasp this. There is a great substantive debate to occur here.
Let us start there. Why must Canadians illegally watch FoxNews on US satellite dishes? The CTRC (FCC equiv in U.S.) will not allow FoxNews into Canada. Why? Why when you watch Canadian TV shows -- nearly all it seems -- is there a line, "supported by funds from the government of Canada" -- not sure of exact wording? Where is the freedom of the press in here (Canada)? Competing news-related stations, e.g. CTV and ROBTV are owned by Bell Canada, the largest Telco firm here. Canada trying to keep competition out, is trying to filter what their citizenry can see based on some moral judgement, or technically cannot broadcast another station. Well, since CNN and CNBC are allowed here, the first reason may not hold. There are plenty of blank channels so that is not the case. So then, has some arrogant politico in Ottowa sat on his/her moral superiority soapbox and declared that FoxNews is not fitting to this Liberal agenda? It is sad that a person sitting 20 miles away across a political border is "allowed" by his government to watch one television station, but on the other side he is not. That is scary. Drive around in a Canadian city some day and you will see hundreds of houses with oddly "home" painted satellite dishes attached to houses. Why? Because people here want freedom of the press, and the government will fine you for trying to get it. As a resident here, you are not allowed to see FoxNews whilst on this soil. Absurd, is it not? Speaking of fair and balanced, this system is not. We want to see FoxNews -- we cannot -- not fair. We want news not filtered by the owners of CTV, ROBTV, the G&M...we cannot get it, but illegally. What say you?
There are numberous reasons why the CRTC may have kept fox news out. The primary function of the CRTC is to ensure that certain percentages of Canadian programming (or viewpoints, be they conservative or liberal) reaches Canadians. As already mentioned, the CNN and MSNBC are already allowed into Canada, and there is also CBC newsworld and the CTV news channel (which isn't very good, IMHO). Flooding the market with too many foreign channels would degrade the Canadian content that is already here.
Before you go on a rant about that function, keep in mind that the United States is the only country in the world that doesn't have to subsidize/regulate the content in some way to ensure that there is enough domestic programming. Canadians, whether you like it or not, have and need a Canadian perspective, just like France/Britian/Belgium/whoever. It is the job of the CRTC to ensure that there is one.
As for people with "home painted" satellite dishes, not all of them are "stealing" American satellite signals. Many are stealing Canadian ones. It is the same thing as free cable. People just don't want to pay for it if they can get around it. You'll see those same dishes in the USA.
Most Canadians could care less about Fox News because I believe that it just doesn't go with most our values. You missed the point of what Doyle (a Globe and Mail culture editorialist, NOT JOURNALIST) was trying to say. He supported bringing Fox news to Canada, but for the entertainment factor and not for the "news". That was his shtick for the article.
Also, if you can call Doyle a moron and not Orielly (whose show I've seen), then you are more ignorant than you initially let yourself out to be.
Posted by: Christioher Hylarides at May 26, 2004 03:51 PMTo all: Let us not call anyone a moron. We have no IQ scores (etc.) on which to base this. Morons, no, although perhaps unduly jaded opinions or mindsets based on partial information or years of yellow journalism. Ignorance is certainly a righteous accusation when one is incapable or unwilling to seek out and listen to facts.
To: CH, you say that too many foreign channels in the market would "degrade" Canadian content. How so? It would provide competition, surely, but degradation? Surely the reporters would not begin reporting less ably, or begin using lesser sets and props, or lower quality footage? Competition is a good thing - it keeps organizations driving toward efficiency and better quality. That is why government is so oft inefficient; no competition.
Your statement very sadly suggests that Canadians are incapable themselves of forming a viewpoint and one must be formed for them by a media group that happens to be funded the government. Canadians, rightly or wrongly, believe their education system so highly superior to many others, especially ones south of here...and as such ought to be able to form their own opinions using the "facts" provided in the news. You, unfortunately, suggest that the news ought to provide a pre-formed viewpoint, a slant, and perhaps only report those facts relevant and supportive thereof.
Re: home painted dishes -- there are people stealing signal all over the world -- that is universal, I reckon. You miss the point. Many Canadians are subscribers to US systems (illegally) because their own government wants to limit what they can watch. No freedom of the press here, eh?
Jack: I appologize for perhaps not being clearer. I did not mean to say that importing Fox news (or the BBC news, or who whomever) would degrade the QUALITY of the news, but specifically the Canadian perspective. Sit down and watch CNN and tell me how much they cover Canadian politics, a story from Nova Scotia, the opinions of Albertans on gay marriage, etc. Almost nothing. If the CRTC allows too much foreign competition that doesn't show enough Canadian viewpoints, then Canadians as a whole will suffer from lack of Canadian news in their own country.
Also, competition by itself does not always mean better quality, cheaper products, or more efficiency. Witness electricity deregulation in Ontario and Alberta, as well as many parts of the USA. It depends on circumstances.
I never said that the media here had to be funded by the government. Though the CBC is (and I personally support that), CTV, CHUM stations, and Global(CANWEST) are not and they are all profitable. This has nothing to do with Canadians forming their own viewpoint, this has to do with them forming their own CANADIAN one. There is already competition, along with Fox, MSNBC, etc. The CBC gets gaurenteed government funding, and the government itself has no say in its policies. Almost all political parties criticize it for catering to the others. If Fox decided to launch their own separate Canadian channel, I'm reasonably sure the CRTC would reluctantly approve it.
As for education, every (developed) country believes their education system to be the best because they see the benefits of how their system works first hand. Ultimatly Canadian and American students score similarily on most international tests, which of course means absolutely nothing. There are costs (we do spend more per student), regional quality (there are huge quality gaps between richer and poorer areas in the US), cost of post-secondary education (technically cheaper in Canada, but since most universities are public it's moot point, but it's still more affordable), etc.
On a side note, you're smart enough to realize that the word "freedom" is among the most highly subjective words in the english dictionary. "Freedom of the press" is in the exact same catagory as "freedom of speech". You cannot say whatever you want (like the classic example of falsely yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre) but is merely the right not to be arrested for venturing an opinion. The KKK is legal here. It is NOT your right to be able to go on TV and say whatever you wish, but you may stand on a street corner and yell whatever you want.
By your analogy Americans have less freedom of speech because the government forces censorship of swearing on TV, whereas in Canada they do not.
Posted by: Christopher Hylarides at May 27, 2004 01:13 PMOOPS. When I said there is already competition here, I said Fox and MSNBC when I meant CNN and MSNBC.
Posted by: Christopher Hylarides at May 27, 2004 01:16 PMTo CH:
a) Ok, clearer on the degradation meaning, but still introduction of competion will not remove any Cdn programming, simply the selection menu gets bigger. Agreed, CNN does not focus on Cdn issues, nor on local issues, and this is why there is local news in every place I have been on this earth (and I have been to many). Agreed, it is important to have local news, "local" being both at the community and national levels. That in no way needs to preclude having FoxNews or any other. I would love to have access to NY1, the local news station in NYC, although I do not live there. Your logic breaks down -- having access to more on the menu does not stop you from ordering anything. It just gives you more options, without someone's filter applied. When you go to a Mexican restaurant, you typically do not see pasta primavera on the menu. We expect that filter, and self-select that place for its specialization. Just because someone is born or lives in Canada, does not mean that some morally superior being at the CTRC should be able to filter the news media available to him/her.
b) Why does every conversation evolve into a comparison of US'ers and Canadians? Sad. Is there not some objective standard? By sliding into the US comparison, it says that the US is the standard to which we all must aspire. Perhaps we should take a temporal perspective and see how we compare to yesterday. Are our taxes lower than last year, and so on.
If we really want to start comparing, let's see, gun ownership rights, patents/person, mortgage rates (150 basis points lower in US), mortage interest deduction, property taxes (.7% in US although it fluctuates by locality, 1.7% here), property taxes are written off of income, gasoline is 40% cheaper, car insurance is half, sales tax is typically half (some states 0%), healthcare is better (if you have a child and have tried to get a pediatrician here, you'll know what I mean -- why are we sending surgey patients to the US? Why will we begin paying $700/person added taxes for healthcare insurance starting this year?), disclosure rules - e.g. 14A on SEC whereby US company officers certify financials, stockholder protections - e.g. when a company tenders a merger in Canada, there need not be a shareholder vote; required in U.S. Canada makes it harder to get rich (very high, very graduated income taxation), but lets the rich stay rich (no estate taxes). Although I do not like the estate tax, the US forces each generation to make it on its own; you cannot just live by padre's money. Let's compare charitable giving per capita. Why? Well, in the US if you drop a basket of used clothing at Goodwill, you get a receipt that you write off of income. Not in Canada. No rec'ts. Why give? To be good and caring and compassionate person, right? Well, guess what. It is not working. OECD stats put Canada ($42/Capita) well below the average charitable donation per capita ($52/Cap/Yr). Why does every service person who visits my place offer to do the work for cash? When I lived in the 'States, that was never offered to me, and when I brought it up, it was rarely an option. Why? Corruption? Mindset? Taxes too burdensome? Why do Canadians have 217 workdays lost/yr/1000 workers to strikes, whereas the OECD average is 50? Canada beats out France (67) for pete's sake.
We have attitudinal issues - greed, lack of empathy, willingness to circumvent the system, uncharitable, and an over-zealous sense of entitlement.
I am entitled to zip. I ask for zip. Back to the US, although I did not like his politics, I do like the phrase, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." We need to get on the stick here.
We need to quit whining. Canada looks like a bunch of Socialist whiners. We stabbed our best pal in the back (Iraq stuff under way).
I read daily reports from Canadians saying Rumsfeld should step down because of the prison thing. Uh, that is some other country -- calm down, mister. How about showing a bit more zeal about asking Martin to step down re: sponsorship? He was in charge of Finance. Oh, but he is Canadian and the moral superiority complex sets in again. Rumsfeld was 15x removed from the prison, Martin was about 3x removed from those involved. Which is more culpable?
Oh I'm tired now. Don't provoke me.
Posted by: Jack at May 27, 2004 01:54 PMJack:
What I was saying were the reasons why the CRTC exists and not that I personally am against Fox News. Like it or not, that entity exists for the very reasons I said, and it does work. Instead of American specialty channels flooding the Canadian market, the CRTC mandated Canadian ones. After that, channels such as Space among others, proped up which show many of the american shows anyways, plus an assortment of Canadian ones. There's no way the Canadian channels would have stood a chance to the HUGE american media without first establishing themselves. The system works on broadcast channels as well. Many stations such as CTV purchase shows, like say the simpsons/sopranos/whatever, and rebroadcast them, with commercials aimed at Canadians, and a certain percentage of Canadian television shows. As I personally am not opposed to Fox News coming to Canada for the very reason I think many americans watch it: because people like bill orielly are entertainment (exactly like the globe and mail editorialist said). The guy is funny because he's a crackpot.
Comparing our country to the UnitedStates is not only justified, but extremely convenient. You even did it yourself, as you were the one who complained that "we feel our education system is better" while we were taking about the United States. It is because we are a large country, with most of our population close to their border, the same language (mostly :), no other country next to us, etc. It is not having them be the standard we must aspire to be, but the standard to which we compare.
You went on to compare a lot of areas where you feel the USA is better, such as:
-Gun rights: which i, as well as most Canadians, feel isn't a right. It, among other things, is one of the reasons our crime rate is almost discustingly lower than the USA. Is it because we're all white here? Toronto, which as a %, has the highest foreign born population in North America, mostly of visible minorities. So why is its per capita crime rate the second lowest among the top 30 largest cities on this contenant?
-Mortgage rates (150 basis points lower in US)and mortage interest deduction: which skews the market and only increases the costs of houses. Housing is one of the prime examples of market oriented economics. If there wasn't deductability in the US, the market would be different to the point where most americans could still afford their homes. the fact that home ownsership rates in both countries are essentially the same proves that point. People in Canada also finish paying off their mortgage in almost a third to half the time as Americans because of this. And couldn't one call tax deductions socialist? What is the difference between the government giving you money for your interest from the general tax pool and deducting it off of your taxes which effects the same pool?
-Cost of gas: which is because of taxes, and being a more spread out country roads are going to cost more. It's the same thing in Europe, which is also a much less car-dependant society.
-Car insurance: which depends on PROVINCE, not the country. In BC, where incidently they have public insurance, rates are extremely low.
-Some business stuff I admittedly know little about and therefor will not comment on
-Progressive taxation: which is more taxing where the money is and not "punishing success" as many like to put it. the richest 10% of Canadians control 35% of the money, while the poorest 10% control around 2-3%. Figures which are similar in both countries. To implement a flat tax (barring an Alberta situation where you have billions a year in oil royalties) you would have to raise taxes for the poorest while cutting it for the richest. Keep in mind that Canadians are taxed at 34% of GDP while americans at 26% (this includes an average of all levels of government), while MOST Canadian provinces and the federal government are running balanced budgets (though provincially mostly razor thin), most of the states and especially the federal government are running huge deficits. Even if the US raised taxes to our percentage of GDP, the feds would still be $200 billion in the hole. And we still have universal health care. Go figure. Of course the United States has a huge military complex, priorities I guess.
-Healthcare premiums: which are a provincial and not Canadian institution. Reasons for this are either too aggressively cutting taxes in the past or whatever you believe. To be fair, I don't think the biggest problem with the american system is it's lack of universality. There are a lot of blurred areas about whose responsibility what areas of healthcare belong to whom (both in what level of governments and what is covered by private insurance), where in canada it's almost cut and dry (provincial). Want an interesting statistic? One of the reasons that automobile manufacturers built plants in Canada is because that not only are wages lower because of the dollar, but they didn't have to give thousands of workers very expensive health benefits. Somebody has to pay for it. In Canada it's just everybody.
-Charity: Interesting statistics, but the governments here tend to cover more of the social problems, so maybe it's just not as needed? I'm not a social worker so I don't know and am guessing. *shrugs*
-Strikes: Wow, I agree with you there, some unions have too much power. That rate seems rediculously high, though. Could you cite where you got it from?
-"additional issues": each and every one of those are purely subjective. If greed and lack of empathy were rapant here, we would never have allowed higher (or even progressive) taxation and universal health to take form. How is what you said different to me going on saying that Americans are "ignorant, greedy, capitalist, crime ridden, gun toting, bible-thumping, and stupid". It'd be a ludicrous blanket statement and I'd look like a jerk.
We don't see ourselves as socialist whiners, we see ourselves as trying to blend the best of both worlds. The rich may not be as rich here, but the poor aren't as poor, either. There are still billionaires in Canada. We never stabbed the US in the back. Canada was the country that provided the most direct help on 9/11. We took in all international flights (that could have been full of terrorists), we housed many americans, and we have the largest foreign contingent in afghanistan. We said we weren't going to support Iraq without UN support. Guess what? It turns out most of the reasons for the invasion were wrong. Over half of Americans now poll that it was a mistake, the same opinion that most of Canadians felt at the time of invasion. If the US was really our "best friend" we would have been thanked for our 9/11 work in Bush's speech, instead of chastized for our refusal to join in Iraq.
I won't be voting for Martin in the next election, that's my most powerful way to affect change, and I will. Rumsfield was not 15x removed, though he is as directly responsible for what happened as Martin was for his scandal. They went marching in saying "we don't need the red cross or amnesty international to keep an eye on our troops, they are of a higher standard" even though he refused to have them held to that standard. Look what happened? Remember the atrocities in Vietnam? The rape and wiping out of entire villages with people in them? He knew about it for months, BUT DIDN'T EVEN INFORM THE PRESIDENT and tried to cover it up. Many Americans feel he should resign, as well. Now the US, in the eyes of Iraqis, have blown any "moral superiority" that Bush claimed.
Not all my points about Canada point to us being better, we just do things differently. You either pay for your health care through taxes, through insurance, or through more expensive products through employer benifits. Results are some things are done better here (lower crime), while some are not (per capita wages). Change to fixing these problems in either country is hard. Just because we champion our ways, doesn't make us "morally superior" any more than when Americans do it.
Oh I'm tired now. Don't provoke me.
You provoked me first ;-) In any case we've both gone way off topic, though I do enjoy depating these things. If you wish to continue, by all means let's email each other. (hylarideATcapybaraDOTorg)
Posted by: Christopher Hylarides at May 27, 2004 06:01 PMCH-
Re: CTRC allowing competition, in logic you fall into what is called the fallacy of the antecendent. By allowing competition (e.g. FoxNews), there will be fewer hours of Canadian programming, simply more information sources. So it costs $x to keep the Cdn media going with gov support. Allow 500 new stations -- tomorrow it still costs $x to run them.
Re: comparing US and Cd. It is embarassing that when you ask a US'er, "what's new in biz?" he might say, "Greenspan lowered the rate 50 bp's today." Ask a Canadian how biz is, and he might say, "Greenspan lowered...". While the interconnections are strong and meaningful, Cdn's need quit whining about what happens down south. There is well enough to do here.
Re: Crime. There is a murder a day in Toronto. Nothing of which to be proud.
Re: mortgage rates. You must not own a house. Cdn: rates at say 7%, 5 years, then you must refinance at the then rate. Your fees to get this are (depends on total amt) about $3000. If you sell your house before the 5 yrs, you MUST STILL PAY the interest as if you still had the mortgage. Let's say you win the lottery or get a bonus at work. YOU CANNOT PRE-PAY your mortgage. You pay mortgage with after tax dollars (you cannot write interest off). Ok, US: 30 years, fixed available today at 5.5%. Want to pre-pay all of it next year? No penalty. Want to send in an extra $100/month? No penalty. Interest rates go up in the next 5 years? Does not matter, interest is fixed (oh, and they are going up). Want to sell your house ANY time during that period? No penalty, no interest due. Start-up costs? Usually about $1000. Oh, and you write off the interest, so you are paying an effective 4% or so. Same with property taxes, the .7% is actually .42%. Cda is 1.7% using after tax dollars. You need to go back and re-read your Ricardo, Kant, Marx (esp.), et al. This is not socialism. This write-off encourages home ownership, as does the first time home buyer GST rebate on houses in Canada. P.S. One does not pay taxes on the purchase of a house in the US (there are local city taxes which are usually a couple of hundred). Actually in the US, that ability to write off both the mortgage interest and property taxes phases out for higher income earners, so this encourages savings (home ownership). Just like user fees, liquor taxes, cigarette taxes, etc., this encourages or discourages some behavior.
RE: Debt financing and % of GDP. Debt financing is not a bad thing. Go look in a finance text about optimal Debt to Equity ratios. Having debt is ok. Having a deficit is not so good. MOst of the states are in the plus, actually. Always recall one thing -- read the US constitution, no-one does it seems. ...The Congress shall have the power to create a budget... or something like it. Congress creates the budget and has put the US in the deficit situation. Not the Pres. Not Clinton, W, Bush Sr., Reagan, et al.
Re: Strike data. OECD.
Re: Moral superiority. This is a commonly held view attached to Canada. Funny, see devil's dictionary for definition of Cognitive Dissonance. Funny, but what makes something funny is its basis, albeit if slight, in truth.
Re: stabbing friends. Martin said -- I'd need to find the quotation -- we need to get to Iraq as soon as possible, blah blah. And then look. The UN did give the resolution years ago. They could not get off the arses in the most recent round because of France who is clinging on to its UN Veto power (originally created b/c France was a super-power and deserved this one of five Veto's). They have become a middle range power in the world now and cling nastilly to this.
Re: Canadians do not see themselves as socialist whiners, but many of those outside the border do. Therein lies the issue.
Re: subjectivity. All claims were/are based on inference, fact, and data. E.g. uncharitable - we don't give here. Simply put, we do not, facts support it. Avg Cdn does not take a bag of old clothes to the Goodwill. Avg American does. Why? I doubt an Altruistic link is as important as the tax break. What happens instead, like you say, is we pay mucho taxes and let some MP spend it on our behalf. When has the government more efficiently, more effectively spent money? Why do we allow them to the moral directors of where our charitable dollars go? Go read Ricardo.
Re: the biz issues. These are UNREAL. P.S. I will keep on with the US comparisons since that has been ok'ed! By SEC and NASD statute, all public companies must report the 5 highest paid employees in the 10-k. That means, stockholders have the right to see pay. Canada? Nope. No disclosure. Votes in mergers? US yes. Cda no. Stockholder votes in proxy fights.. US yes, Cda no. The list goes on. It takes an educated person to bring these to light, but since everything is run by Ottowa here, I can't see anyone calling Uncle soon.
Don't provoke me? True Grit. Search IMDB. It is funny.
Re: Healthcare. If the socialized medicine experiment were working...we'd not have supplemental insurance. We'd have eye benefits, dental, paid drugs, etc. There'd be no waiting lists. WE'd not be having an added $700 added to our tax bill this coming year. Trust me, I like going to hospital with no bill. While living in the US, my healthcare was WAY better. MUCH nicer facilities, and it cost me less (you pay at work, but not a dime for drugs, eyeglasses, travel healthcare when you leave the country). If you leave Canada for a week, you buy that $75 policy, right? I am embarassed about our facilities here. Old, dirty, and you wait, wait, wait. I like the no bill, though, trust me. We need to privatize parts of it to bring efficiency. Which? ANother discussion.
Re: Rumsfeld. I think Canucks ought to clean house here first. Ever read, "Beware the naked man who offers you his shirt"? Well let's clean this house (e.g. sponsorship, healthcare) then we can exercise that moral superiority and not be laughed at by the world.
Posted by: Jack at May 28, 2004 08:38 AMCrime: Toronto had 65 homicides last year. 365/65 does not equal 1 a day, that's a little over 1 a week. Chicago (roughly the same population as Toronto) on the other hand had almost 600. That's 65 to not be proud of, but 535 to be. The per capita homicide rate in Canada was a quarter that of the US last year.
All I will comment on with regards to Iraq was that I supported Canada's stance for the single reason that I don't trust Bush, and most of his secretaries scare me. The invasion only encouraged terrorism (spain?!) and the fact that we're having elections here only make me more glad we didn't go in, as I take the subway. Also, there were no immenent threats of weapons of mass destruction (and hardly any at all), the iraqis don't prefer US freedom over saddam torture, and it's an expesnive mess. IMO, this has only encouraged my disdain for that man. Here's a quick thought: What's the moral difference between being a pacifist and a war supporter? Pacifists believe in NOT fighting for what's right, while war supporters believe in fighting for what's wrong. It didn't matter what Paul Martin said about iraq, as it was Cretien who was PM at the time.
Mortages: But you ignore some of the points that Chris made, ie that home ownership rates are similar here as it is to the US. Also, that Canadians pay off their mortgages sooner and that houseing costs just go up to what the market can bear. Added, decuctions also cause the government lost revenue, which will just have to be offset by higher taxes anyways. It's a trade off.
I just purchased a house in Toronto, and there were no significant taxes (though a couple of fees from lawyers who are pigs in either country, registering with the city, etc). There is a (very high) capital gains tax on houses if you sell it soon after purchase. This is to discourage people buying up real estate and reselling it right away for a few thousand more. It caused house prices to skyrocket. That tax is a good thing for everybody. If you own more than 1 piece of property (ie cottage) there are significant taxes, but at the same time those are usually luxuries.
Your debt arguement makes little sense. By your logic the US has a tremendous problem, with its record deficits. Chris' point still stands that the Canadian government is taxing residents to maintain services, while the us government, be it congress or bush or whomever, isn't. Adding half a trillion dollars a year is not going to bode will in the long term and predicting the future deficits is too uncertain. Personally, I'd rather be paying huge sums of money for healthcare than the military.
Side note: You are both ignoring the fact that the Canadian and US government systems are very much differently set up. You are argueing points that are of different authority in each country. Canada is much more decentralized and the vast majority of government is under the jurisdiction of the provinces, whereas in the USA it's almost all federal. That's why Candian provincial income taxes are usually higher than American state taxes. Even mortgage interest deductability can't fall under federal jurisdiction in Canada, and the former provincial conservatives offered partial mortage deductability in Ontario, but were voted out of office. In the US, the federal government gives huge sums of money to urban transit systems, where in Canada the law states that cities are the jurisdiction of the provinces. This means regional policies can more easily get implemented. Medicare in Canada is not a federally mandated law, that would be unconstitutional. A province can opt-out, but it then risks losing tons of federal money.
Jack, your subjectivity claim has no merit and is the only thing you say that actually offends me as a Canadian. You claim that "greed, lack of empathy, willingness to circumvent the system, uncharitable, and an over-zealous sense of entitlement" are all problems in Canada? You counter that Canadians don't donate blankets to charity and Christopher slammed back that the government provides services. What difference does it really make, guys? Canadians chose, by VOTING IN PEOPLE THAT IMPLEMENT THESE POLICIES, to do it this way. Just how does that make us greedy and unempathic? Either way it's a different way of solving similar issues as somebody here said. "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness" is the motto of the US, where in Canada it's "Peace, Order, and Good Government".
"if socialized medicine was working?" What an ignorant statement! There are problems in the system, and all three of the federal parties are offering more money (which is all the federal government can do, constitutionally), even the right wing conservatives. The US has it's problems that are not even a significant issue in federal politics at all, such as the millions who are not covered, rising insurance premiums, etc. The health systems of all developed countries are going to come under strain as their populations age and retire.
Per capita, as a WHOLE, canadians actually spend only 75% of what the US spends on healthcare. This includes private (yes it does exsist in Canada) and public funds and doesn't take research into account (the US spends a lot more here). As somebody here also said, it is all in where the money is being spent. In Canada it's just through the government. As a whole, Canadians are not as fearful of government services as americans are.
Jack, I agree that we need more private facilities in Canada, but i refuse to allow anybody but the government to pay. I will never support privatizing health insurance, because if you think governments mismanage your money, wait till you see what insurance companies do. Governments can at least introduce progressive taxation. Private companies that compete to deliver timely services would make the system much more efficient, and truely the envy of the USA. Unless you've worked for yourself in the US, you have no idea how much you're paying there. Most of the costs are hidden, and they are merely a burden on the company instead of the government.
Are Canadians more left wing that Americans? It would seem so. Are we living miserable communist lives? It doesn't look like it. Are we immoral by supporting gay marriage and not the death penalty? Is it we just have different morals? I've read this site and it's obviously right by american standards, which puts in really right by canadian standards. It's your point of view, which is good that it's so different. It makes us both think about the problems in our philosophies. At the same time it makes it difficult, becuase we see different things as problems.
Finally, to jack, you're acting like Canada is the only country that has had a scandal. Let's not get started on that, ok? If the American Ambassador can slam Canada on its gay marriage and drug decriminilization stances (and he has), then we can chide them over their domestic/foreign issues, much like we can make fun of the quirks of any country. Anybody want to make fun of France? Plenty of other Americans (Bill Orielly, anyone?) do the same thing. Do you think they should shut up, as well?
Posted by: Thorpe at May 28, 2004 12:30 PMThorpe: Another tirade comparing Canada and the US. It is so sad we do this. Let us find some other objective standard.
By using the U.S. as a measuring stick, we are saying they are what is right and good, and we therefore revolve around that, either better or worse in any given facet. If the U.S. is such a horrible place, why do you not use France as a measuring stick?
Anyway to address a few points.
All of your morality arguments fall apart. Morality is based on morals. Morals come, in the Western world, primarily from Judeo- Christian upbringings. That said, we all have slightly different bases from which we judge morality, and thus nothing, philosophically, can be judged except from an individual's moral view.
Re: Bush - you do not trust Bush. Ok, I do not trust (m)any politicians.
Re: Mortgages - you are partly right, but clearly not educated on the matter. Cap gains on houses are roughly similar without a holding period. Asset prices will move to what the market will bear (right), but that precludes the opp cost of what you make in the market. The spread of average return on (e.g. gov bills, or stock market, or take your pick), shows a smaller spread from real mortgage cost, thus it becomes more expensive. Home ownership rates are not dissimilar (right), but you will notice that personal consumption other than home, and GDP/Capita in free cash flow (ex home) is much higher in the US because people can use the money elsewhere. If you look at the spreads, you'll seen that the mortgage "system" is fat here. That is, the banks are not creating an efficient market. You see, if the market yields 45% interest, I don't mind a 35% mortgage, etc. Ok, this is not basic finance, but I trust you'll understand.
Re: Healthcare. I have lived in US and been SE there. In both cases if I added up my tax bill and insurance premia, they were less than my tax bill here, and I went to far superior healthcare facilities. Trust me, I really like not getting a bill. I want retire here.
Re: Spending on healthcare not guns? The old guns vs. butter debate. Hey I cannot agree more. If we/they spent $0 on guns, think of the boon we'd see. Oh yeah, that happened when the US spent, spent, spent, and spent, and MAD'ed the Russians into saying Uncle and ended the cold war. That is largely why there is such a debt, although it continues.
Re: centralized gov. Your lack of education shocks me. Read the US constitution? It says, all powers not specifically granted to the Federal gov are granted to the states. Canadian? All powers not specifically granted to the Provinces are Fed. Now as a % of GDP, which is bigger. Cdn. Which is just bigger. Of course the US is, it has 10x the population.
re: healthcare, yes, Cdn's pay 75% of the US in per capita $, but a) the per capita income is less so it hurts more; b) the care is worse; and c) again, you need to do your homework. Three things drive the US costs up: 1) better equipment and more of it (more MD's per capita - check OECD); 2) profits that are skimmed to private companies; 3) litigation costs. Now, which is better. 1) I like the best equipment. 2) I don't like that profits are paid to some company, but guess what, that 10% profit is paid to ME, the shareholder (ever heard of zero sum game?) - those profits go to someone, just not the gov. 3) Litigation -->>>> Ok, here is the real way to fix US healthcare. Not socialize it. It is called Tort Reform. Fix this, you cut the costs. A colleague of mine is an anesthesiologist in Boston. Pays over $200K (US)/year in liability insurance to protect himself. Himself. Therein lies the issue...
Re: charity. You want to tax everyone and let some majority party dole it out? What about those who voted for someone else? My money is therefore not being doled out how I want it to. So you are saying it is ok to infringe upon the rights of the minority? There are few instances when monopoly or government run is more efficient. Go back to Econ (again, Ricardo is good). Let individuals be charitable. It works in much of the world, just not here. I am embarrassed by it.
Re: shutting up. Now, sometimes it would be nice to have some people do so...but I am a free speecher. Rant and rave away to your heart's delight.
re: scandals. The US and Canada have them, yes, but I think they would pale in comparison to, say, India or Mexico. Everyone has them. Different is how people shove them under rug (sponsorship).
re: death penalty and gay marriage? Yeah. Nay. But if the democracy here says "yeah," knock yourself out.
Oh yeah, and on that point, democracy, I am shocked that this is not a democracy. We do not elect a leader. Who out there is casting a vote for Martin? Anyone? Anyone? No, because we do not cast votes for our big guy, do we. We just vote in some party that selects whomever they please. That is sick.
Go read econ and finance and philosophy, then reply.
Posted by: Jack at May 28, 2004 04:49 PM"Thorpe: Another tirade comparing Canada and the US. It is so sad we do this. Let us find some other objective standard."
Alright: How do you feel about various european or the Australian models of healthcare? In the Netherlands it's essentially the same as in Canada, except regular family doctors are not covered. In France, the government pays for typically 70% of personal healthcare costs, except in long term or overly expensive procedures. Or how about bulk-billing in Australia? I know little of other countries (Japan, Germany, etc) though I know they mostly have some government funding.
"All of your morality arguments fall apart. Morality is based on morals. Morals come, in the Western world, primarily from Judeo-Christian upbringings."
Society is also moving away from those values. Some things are generally seen as morally wrong no matter what the religous background (murder, stealing, etc are still seen as wrong in Japan and China). As fewer and fewer people attend church (at least in Canada, where it's still steadily declining), believe in god, and as immigration continues those "base values" will change. The fact that those under 30 almost overwhelmingly support abortion and gay marriage can attribute to that. Look at sex. The vast majority of people now lose their virginity before marriage, and many before they're even legal adults. Even if you disagree with this (i don't know if you actually do or not), obviously these people don't.
"That said, we all have slightly different bases from which we judge morality, and thus nothing, philosophically, can be judged except from an individual's moral view."
Agreed...mostly. But I personally feel you think that most people's values are closer than they really are. But let us just leave that as a matter of opinion.
As for mortgage deductability, I think I'll read into what other countries have it (I know at least the Netherlands does) before commenting on this further. You obviously have an economic background and I'll keep an open mind in this one, but at the same time people who closely analyze the details often overlook the broader issue. So I still remain sceptical.
"I have lived in US and been SE there. In both cases if I added up my tax bill and insurance premia, they were less than my tax bill here, and I went to far superior healthcare facilities. Trust me, I really like not getting a bill. I want retire here."
Firstly, I too have known people self-employed in the US and got married to Canadians and moved here. I talked with one and he said is overall tax burden was lower in Canada, but he was also what most would qualify as low income. It is true (look at the combined average tax rates in canada and the US) that the poorest Canadians pay less tax than the poorest Americans. Secondly, there are other things that the higher taxes here could be paying for. That's not the best comparison.
"The old guns vs. butter debate..."
I won't get into what actually ended the cold war as there were many factors, but Thorpe was commenting on the present and specifically current deficits and the still huge US military budget.
"Re: centralized gov. Your lack of education shocks me..."
As a matter of budget and delivery of services, the Canadian federation is much more highly decentralized. Most of the money that the federal government takes in is seeded directly back to the provinces in the much complicated (though necessary) transfer system. The combined revenue of the provinces is much more than that of the feds. The constitutional quote means nothing because it doesn't say WHAT services belong to whome. Next time you ever have to deal with government services in Canada, take note: it's almost never the federal government. Essentially (as of now) only criminal law, foreign affairs, and the military are strictly the roles of the federal government. Crime and punishment is uniform throughout the Country. Almost everything else, including health care, water, civil law (quebec uses a very different system than the rest), city/rural issues, roads, actual police services and court proceedings, are all provincial. Example: the Canadian government could not build an interstate-like system without strict approval of the provinces. If one province wanted no part of it, there's little the feds can do. It's the same with healthcare. Almost every province implements it differently. Also, if you haven't, read up on how Canada's medicare system came into being. It started out as one province (Saskatchewan i think, though it may have been Manitoba) implementing it completely on its own.
Also, why must you smash anybody's arguements as "lack of education"? That is what people who don't know a whole lot about what they're talking about like to say too try and make the other guy look stupid. I notice your arguements on economic matters are very strong, but on other are very weak.
"Re: charity. You want to tax everyone and let some majority party dole it out? What about those who voted for someone else? My money is therefore not being doled out how I want it to."
Welcome to any government in the world, be it democratic or not. What about the british who didn't support the war? What about the saudis who don't want to pay for huge palaces? What about the people who don't own a car and yet still pay into roads? Thorpe never said what he wanted, he said how it was and Canadians vote for politicians whome implement this stuff. That is one of the prices to living in a democracy.
"Different is how people shove them under rug (sponsorship)."
Or the prison scandal, or any other scandal.
"death penalty and gay marriage?"
Nay and Yay. Simply because I don't like the idea of the state taking lives. Life in prison can be a very nice punishment. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see paul bernardo hang, but as in all countries, innocent people get convicted. Also, I feel that limiting the ability of others to do as they please, and things that don't affect anybody else, is not the place of the government to prevent gay marriage.
"Oh yeah, and on that point, democracy, I am shocked that this is not a democracy. We do not elect a leader. Who out there is casting a vote for Martin? Anyone? Anyone? No, because we do not cast votes for our big guy, do we. We just vote in some party that selects whomever they please. That is sick."
de·moc·ra·cy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
Which are you referring too? Canada certainly fits all of these but #4. Many countries only have a prime minister (britain, isreal, netherlands, japan, germany (pres is ceremonial)) and merely a symbolic president or other head of state. By folowing number 4 the election of the president of the USA is not democratic, as Al Gore got the popular vote...As was argued before, it's just a different way of doing things.
I will point out that I do agree that the Prime Minister has way too much unchecked power (a reformed senate is needed), but I feel that the concept of a prime minister is not flawed. We elect a representative, and the party that wins gets it's leader as PM. Since parties in Canada tend to usually follow the same values as it's leader I don't think this matters. As much as you hate it, I will compare to the US, since it's the only non-parlaimentary system I know. There, 3 different elections are held for the federal government alone. In Canada the house of commons has almost absolute power, wheras in the US I FEEL there is too much splitting and a lot of stalling. In other words, too much complication and bureaucracy. Also, none of his secretaries are elected, yet hold a lot of power.
One final question to Jack: You say you want to retire here, and yet you seem set against much of what this country offers and stands for. To many, you seem like you're against everything this country does that makes it great. What is it you so much like about this country, if it's not the way the government is elected, the "socialist" policies, the general left-wing nature of society, etc that would make you prefer living here?
Posted by: Christopher Hylarides at May 28, 2004 07:50 PMjack:
RE decentralization:
The ORIGIONAL intent in Canada was to have the Federal government control all that was not specifically the roles of the provinces. However, in 1895 the imperial Privy Council ruled that the federal government could exercise its residuary power only in wartime. As a result, responsibilities for new functions of government such as labour law or social welfare had to be accommodated under powers specified in the British North America Act. Many ended up being assigned to provincial areas of jurisdiction, so that Canada today is a highly decentralized federation. Further decentralization of functions has been implemented to accommodate provincial aspirations, chiefly those of Quebec. However, all provinces have the right to assume the powers now exercised only by Quebec, and Alberta and Ontario have expressed interest in doing so.
Christopher is right that most government regulations/laws that affect Canadians directly are provincial. Remember that quebec had the no right turns on red lights law for years, and that quebec has a highly subsidized day care program. There are still grey areas, however. The issue of gay marriage comes up in that it's up to the federal government to define it, but some provincial premiers feel that they can opt out (which legally I don't believe they can't out of this specific issue) because marriage licenses are granted by the provinces. BUT, most police services are also provincial responsibility (the RCMP operates under CONTRACT in most western provinces), but they must follow federal criminal law. The notwithstanding clause only allows provinces to opt out of areas that the federal government encroaches on that are strictly provincial in responsibility.
Posted by: Thorpe at May 29, 2004 11:23 AMThorpe, CH:
Yes, I know the finance and taxation stuff; I have a PhD in Finance, masters in Econ, and BA in poli sci.
Please do this. Go read Douglass North, Rise of the Western World, and be brutally honest and objective in your assessment of: a) what made Canada great; and b) where we are headed. This will truly help you form some interesting views.