turningrite

While watching CNN last night and listening to a segment on Trump's antics at the NATO summit, the redoubtable Christiane Amanpour noted that following the collapse of the Soviet bloc there was a movement to form a European security force to replace NATO although the ideas was apparently opposed by the Americans who wanted to maintain the alliance. I've read elsewhere that the U.K., which often seems to view its "special relationship" with the U.S. as equally or perhaps more important than its European connections, has also opposed a solely European security system. But, given Trump's harrumphing and bullying, is it time for the Europeans to go it alone, and perhaps time for Canada, too, to cut the apron strings? We recently found out that the Americans have no intention of defending us from a missile attack, despite our NATO and NORAD connections. So, is it worthwhile to grant Trump any further leverage or should we all call his bluff and tell him to stuff it and wave goodbye (maybe with a specific finger held high)?

America is where the money is. It's made sure of that, particularly where its economic relationship with Canada is concerned. I think Canada should ask Trump for the massive compensation owed for all the educated people we've exported over the past several decades. It would easily eclipse anything Trump imagines Canada owes America.

Personally, I don't care if anybody "loves" Canada. In some ways, I wish fewer did. I know America loves to love itself. I think there's a good word for that but I'm too tired to recall it. Oh yeah, it's narcissism.

So, probably more influence proportionately than America's share of glory for the rescue in Thailand, right?

Poor America!! You know what they say about guys who boast about too much about their own attributes - they're probably insecure about the shortcomings they don't want to talk about. Just saying....

I'm just commenting on Trump's chauvinism. Surely Americans realize how it's perceived beyond America's borders, right?

LOL for sure. Elon Musk was educated in Canada! Not that his high-tech solution was utilized in the rescue. But it's the thought that counts.

You seem to have worked yourself into a lather over, well, I'm not exactly sure what. What are we not paying for? Are we not paying for not being protected against missile attacks even though we're supposedly involved in a continental defense partnership with the U.S.? I think a lot of people were surprised when the U.S. recently admitted that its missile defense policy is to not protect Canada. Maybe we're overpaying if we contribute anything at all. And are we not paying enough for the defense of Europe when many analysts believe we have no specific strategic interests there in any case. We've mainly stayed involved in NATO in order to maintain contact with and tangential relevance to the Europeans. We really should ask if we should be there at all. I think you need to give your head a shake.if you think we're taking advantage of anybody on any of this.

Huh? I believe the rescue was primarily a Thai military effort that was achieved with the help of people from many countries, including Australia, Britain, the U.S., and, yes, even Canada. I didn't even know a Canadian diver was involved until I saw him featured on a news item that aired earlier today. But Trump made sure the world knew Americans were involved, right? Hmmm....

1.) I'm not sure you'd find many progressives up here who'd associate themselves with Trump's agenda. Hey, I'm not a progressive and I have as much difficulty divining progressive logic as much as I often do Trump's. I think the progressive view up here on jobs is a cop-out that largely sustains the status quo. In Canada, there's little pressure from progressives to roll back the "free trade" agenda or globalization and no pressure to rationalize Canada's huge (compared to the U.S. and most other Western countries) and problematic immigration program. The progressive left is apoplectic about Trump's immigration policies. Our progressives are very politically correct and are obsessed with diversity and "equity" (our term for affirmative action). I doubt Trump or many of his supporters care at all about these things. 2.) The deployment of the U.S. constitution as an icon of sorts is one of the most bizarre aspects of American democracy. To imbue it with meaning that can't rationally be ascertained in a modern context seems, well, nutty to many non-Americans (and probably to a lot of Americans as well). Some studies have indicated that a significant segment of those who support constitutionalism see the document as sacred (or magically inspired, according to a TV news item I watched yesterday). Examined objectively, the "constructionist" or constitutionalist (also sometimes called "originalist") position doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The notion that the "founders" or "framers" could have even imagined many of the issues that would come before the courts centuries later is so remote as to be ridiculous. In reality, much of the constitutionalist argument, as I stated, is merely window dressing to promote and justify a partisan judiciary, which surely would have horrified the founders, who believed in the division of powers and checks and balances. The partisan attachment to constitutionalism is illustrated in a 2014 Pew Research Center study (link below). When constitutionalists state that they espouse the values of the founders, I believe they're more often (and maybe always?) trying to cast their own ideology as preemptively superior and permanent. That's not how democracies function. Again the founders would likely shudder at the things being done in their name. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/31/americans-divided-on-how-the-supreme-court-should-interpret-the-constitution/

1.) Such as...? 2.) A constitutionalist? Hmmm.... I find that description bizarrely disturbing. When watching a U.S. news show yesterday evening, one of the panelists, when discussing Trump's SCOTUS nom, talked about the "magic of the founders." Wow! From a rationalist's perspective, there's a lot of mysticism woven into that notion. Can one read the minds of the founders, and if so would their views actually coincide with modern assessments and realities? Would the founders really have believed it to be constitutionally justifiable to knowingly execute innocent men, as has been permitted by avowed constitutionalists on the U.S. Supreme Court? Much of what now passes for constitutionalism is really part of a philosophy called "constitutional constructionism" and is the prevailing legal preference among U.S. conservatives. But what, exactly, did those darned founders intend? They weren't saints, for sure. As a group, they reflected Enlightenment-era rationalism (and practicality, as they found a way to accommodate slavery in the cause of political unity) and would probably shudder at the kind of modern day malarkey that's often spouted in their name. I think strict constitutional constructionism is mainly window dressing designed to justify a partisan judiciary, provided that judiciary reflects a singular ideological perspective. But can such a judiciary be free and objective? Hmmm... it might not be sufficient to maintain the legitimacy of American democracy. Oh, but it's magic! (I almost forgot.) And that saves it?

Your argument about contradictions seems silly to me. There is no rational basis for religious belief per se and certainly no basis other than power and control for organized religion. I don't doubt that some people are attracted to spiritualism as an emotional salve but organized religion has been such a destructive force in human history that it's unfortunate so many still cling to it. The fact that religion is commonplace throughout much of the world only renders it common, but not rational. I don't take the bible literally, and even though I was raised a Catholic I was never encouraged to do so. A famous writer whose name escapes me at this point, once pointed out that it's one of the beneficial attributes of Catholicism that it's generally been able to avoid biblical fundamentalism. In fact, there's a far greater emphasis on the New Testament than the Old, which has permitted Catholicism to adapt to scientific change. Now, if only it would catch up on social change! I don't really care if you don't take me seriously. Just don't ask me or anybody else to take religion seriously.

Too funny! The Americans couldn't absorb Canada without conferring full citizenship. Even poor Puerto Rico, with its bizarrely inferior political status, got full citizenship for its people. The U.S. would probably have to create about 5 or 6 states if it were to absorb Canada. Leaving Quebec aside, as it would likely become independent, B.C., Alberta, and Ontario, in particular, have larger populations than do many U.S. states. So, there's be 10 or 12 new Senate seats to deal with. What's the current Republican advantage in the Senate? Two seats, right? There would be less impact on the House of Reps., but it's of less importance in the American power structure in any case. Even 30 to 40 reallocated seats there, though, could easily swing the balance in a close election. Would the Republicans be willing to take the risk?

1.) You're proving my point. 2.) These are Canada's priorities within the current paradigm. Were that paradigm to change and the alliances to which we belong disintegrate, as appears to be Trump's preference, our priorities would likely change as well. 3.) The U.S. doesn't recognize "International law" except apparently when/where it suits it to pay lip service. Furthermore, the international law to which you presumably refer is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the U.S. has not at this point signed. The U.S. operates on a philosophy of "exceptionalism", which is entirely grounded in self interest, so it's hypocritical to argue that when Canada assets its own interests it is operating contrary to international law when the U.S. itself hasn't ratified this law. Don't you think? Furthermore, the dispute over the Northwest Passage is not an entirely settled matter. Canada asserts the applicability of its 200 mile economic zone as well as its 12 mile territorial limit, which are legitimate arguments to support a case of the passage being Canadian "territorial waters" under applicable international law. The American objection is at this point not actually based on international law but simply on grounds of U.S. policy.

"Consider the possibility you aren't nearly as humourous as you seem to believe you are." Argus: I often wonder about claims by some that they're only joking. If the joke's not apparent in the first place, you've got to wonder, right?

“Dear America, appreciate your allies, after all you don’t have that many,” Said this week by Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council, on the eve of Trump's visit to Europe. It kind of says it all.

The notion that it's a primary role of post-secondary institutions to produce athletes and/or serve as a feeder system for the pro sports industry has never taken hold in Canada, nor anywhere else in the West that I can think of. Interestingly, America's academically top-ranked universities don't seem as focused on this in comparison to many public or state universities.

Actually, yes. The U.S. has its own broader security objectives which are often at odds with those of many of its allies. In other words, the U.S. has international objectives which are not shared by many other Western countries and which have landed it in hot water, cost a lot of money and had negative corollary implications, as was the case with Bush II's ill-advised Iraq war. The problem with America's massive military machine is the temptation to actually use it. It was crucial in WWII but since has at times been a force for harm as much as for good. It's not comforting to learn, as we recently did, that Trump was champing at the bit for a little war against Venezuela. It's a good thing his advisors were able to rein him in. Canada is not really at risk of invasion by any country, other perhaps than the U.S. - and maybe a Russian challenge to our Arctic sovereignty. But even in the Arctic, American policy is probably closer to the Russian and Chinese positions in some respects than to Canada's. The U.S. could take over Canada militarily at any time it wished, no matter the size of our military budget. My suspicion is that few Republicans would be interested in this because they'd likely see their new Canadian compatriots as being hopelessly "blue" in political and social orientation. So here we live, inhabiting a continent aside an often oblivious Goliath. We just have to hope it doesn't take too much notice of us. Justin Trudeau's father compared the relationship to a mouse sleeping next to an elephant but I prefer the expression attributed to Mexican president Porfirio Diaz, who eloquently described his country's dilemma as being "so far from God and so close to the United States."

True, but the Trudeau government, which I believe to be primarily responsible for this particular mess, should have to shoulder political responsibility for its costs. Downloading many of these costs to provinces and municipalities obscures the real burden to taxpayers. Personally, I believe the social costs associated with all forms of immigration should be borne by the federal government for a set number of years (perhaps 5 years for those who enter under the points system and 10 for everybody else) following entry to Canada. We need to know how much this system is costing us. This would be a rational policy approach that enhances accountability.

Trudeau has benefited from a Trump bounce. Every time Trump criticizes poor Justin there's an almost automatic sympathetic response among many Canadians. I agree with the Mexican leaders, including their former president, Fox, who've criticized the often obsequious Canadian approach to Trump. Trudeau does love victims, self-styled or otherwise, but is it really in Canada's interest to play the abused victim role with the Americans? What is 'Plan B' in the event Trump digs in on his protectionist agenda? Oh well, by next year's federal election the U.S. midterms will be long over and we'll know whether the Trudeau/elitist strategy had any beneficial impact.

Maybe that's because it has by far the largest population among Western countries? Digging a little deeper, the general education system in the U.S. is ranked below that of many other Western countries, including Canada's. As for employment, you're correct. Canada is particularly disadvantaged as it long ago became a branch plant and under "free trade" a branch market for mainly American corporations. Little R&D is done here. One of my uncles completed his PhD on scholarship at a prestigious university U.S. decades ago and had to remain there to work as a scientist. On this issue the more things have changed, the more they have remained the same, or worsened. NAFTA simply entrenched Canada's weaknesses

As I said previously, you're not interested in rational debate. Just remember that you're on the losing side on this, and increasingly so. Religiosity is waning, particularly in the West where it's not likely to make a comeback. Secularism is the basis for progress and tolerance. It is the future. If you want an excellent example, look to Ireland, where people have finally realized that religion only served to control them. Now, they're free.

There are a couple problems with this. First, the "irregular" migrants now crossing our borders are in many cases probably not actual refugees. They can file refugee claims, which isn't the same thing as being refugees, a determination that can take years to complete in Canada's inefficient and cumbersome system. The other problem is that the provinces and municipalities pick up most of the social costs for supporting these migrants from the outset. The federal government provides only limited support in the form of health coverage. In fact, generally speaking, the feds only provide one year settlement support for refugees who are processed overseas and arrive here as "Convention" refugees, as was the case with the thousands of government-sponsored Syrians brought into the country under Trudeau's much ballyhooed program. Trudeau could address some of the current backlash by agreeing to pick up all the social, medical, legal and other support costs for the so-called "inland" refugee claimants until their claims are assessed. My guess is that his government would be reluctant to do so at least in part because the true cost of the program would become apparent. Accountability isn't this government's strong suit. Trudeau treatment of Ford, whom he said simply doesn't understand our international obligations, was typically condescending. Trudeau himself should know better as I believe sovereign nations are parties to most international treaties and agreements, including I believe those covering refugee matters. Thus, it's properly the federal government that should pay the freight on this.

betsy: It seems to me that religiously inclined people too often operate within a self-contained model of logic that's intolerant of and impervious to rational rebuttal. In terms of religiosity, the fastest expanding group in Canada is the non-religious, who, once lapsed or so-called "cultural" Catholics are taken into account, likely now comprise an absolute majority of the population. We shall prevail, because logic and truth are on our side. I can see why you are so angry and frustrated because religious dogma is to a great degree grounded in superstition and sentimentalism. Sorry, but in rational terms it's a debate you and other religionists are losing.

It's not really a valid comparison because if you have a fire your insurance will likely cover the cost of most or all your damages after you cover the deductible. With defense, on the other hand, there's a substantial difference in scale to consider. The scale of the military forces we might confront, including the U.S. or Russia, are so vastly greater than anything this country can afford as to render military spending tokenism. If we were really to face an attack from another country, which is a very remote possibility in any case, we'd likely be defenseless even if we were to double or triple our current military spending. If you want to continue with the insurance analogy, maintaining a large military defensive capability would in Canada's case be like having an insurance policy were you could only pay to cover 10 or 15 percent of potential damages. In the modern era, there is really only one strategy that permits smaller nations to gain any military leverage, which is acquiring and maintaining nuclear weapons. Canada certainly has the technological capability to do this, but are we willing to do it?