Zeitgeist

I basically agree with you, but the problem is that there are too many counterexamples of women who claim to embrace these practices by free choice. It's almost become a unifying symbol of resistance for some sects, which makes me think that the best way to dispel them is simply to ignore them and move on. If there are women who actively choose to wear black sack cloth head to toe with slits for their eyes in the searing heat, that's their problem. As their children and children's children become more integrated in the wider society, these practices will disappear because any moderate person who has been somewhat socialized in a progressive culture sees them as ridiculous, which they are.

This is just so far off the mark of how most Canadians feel about Canada that it's hard to imagine your remarks coming from a Canadian. If you can see Canadian production declining at the same rate as U.S. production, why target Canada with tariffs or a lopsided NAFTA? It isn't that Canada doesn't get it, it's that we're trying to set policy that will actually level the playing field, such as implementing a higher Mexican minimum wage in the auto sector. This policy wasn't concocted in the U.S. State Department. These ideas have been floated in Canada and other countries for years and are quite progressive. The trade war is dangerous and may not end well for all trading partners.

Canada had Bricklyn, a high performance car akin to DeLorian. It doesn't matter. Canada never considered having a nationalized auto. Canada has always been part of the U.S. supply chain, which has sold heavily in the U.S. and Canada, eventually leading to European versions with what is now essentially foreign ownership, e.g. Opel. Canada has had the capacity to produce cars for a very long time, since almost the beginning of auto production actually and up into WW2, when there were still Canadian car companies. McLaughlin was an Ontario car maker that essentially become subsumed by GM as Buick. More recently Magna almost went into production with an SUV in the Chretien era. They made so much money supplying parts to the auto sector that it wasn't a priority. Maybe it should be, but as any economist today will tell you, publicly traded companies are just that. There are few national companies unless they are in a sense nationalized, e.g. the Soviet Lada. Supply moves to markets that buy. Production moves to markets that are either cheep, highly productive, high tech/high value add, or are a hybrid of some or all of these things. Government policy/regulations are just additional inputs the cost/benefit analysis of production and sales. When production is low quality, usually a reputation is associated with the location. This happened early on in Japan's insdustrialization when the slogan, "Made in Japan" meant low quality. It means the opposite now. The same was said early on of South Korea's products. The U.S. got that rep for autos in the 80's and 90's. Companies and countries seldom accept having a reputation for lousy production. So here's the bottom line: Companies want to sell into markets. Canada is a strong market for auto purchases. Companies want to produce where the production is good. Canada's highly skilled workforce is very productive at manufacturing, especially at the high tech end. We could talk smart phones, health sciences, artificial intel, it doesn't matter. Canada rates high in all those areas. Canada is productive and high tech in auto manufacturing, and costs are in line with U.S. production due to our health care system (which saves companies on workers' benefits) and lower dollar. These are distinct Canadian advantages that aren't going anywhere. Also, companies that want to sell to this market have to respect its value, or else they risk tariffs, boycotts, essentially bad business. Canada and the U.S.'s trade relationship serves both countries well in equal numbers. To mess with that is a mistake. Nevertheless, Trump is seeking a reorganization of that order in such a way that the U.S. will attain greater advantage. They can try this on, but bad treatment in trade policy such as tariffs will always be countered in equal measure by Canada. There may be some hardship if we go to auto tariffs and counter-tariffs, but we will do that if necessary, because it's better to live parched than to be poisoned to death. Simply, Canada will adjust if need be. The problem with a lot of the rhetoric on here by some of the right-wing commentators and fake Canadians is that it doesn't take into account how Canadians see their own country. We're very proud of Canada and our way of life. Yes we have problems, but I'd say that the vast majority of Canadians would prefer to have our problems than the problems of most other countries. So while many Canadians such as myself didn't vote for Trudeau or think he was that great, the provinces and Canadians are standing shoulder to shoulder with the federal government to ensure that the way of life that we value in Canada isn't compromised. And in some cases that does include a bit of gender equity "feminist stuff" or other social policy. However, negotiations are a two--way street. Canada can make some compromises, but this isn't a deal where the U.S. says, "We want this, this, and this", and Canada says, "Okay, here you go and nothing for us in return." In the end, either a new NAFTA is good for the country or it has to be dropped.

Then expect overcrowding of our major cities, continued poverty on reserves, high costs to service small far flung communities, and more challenges bringing a large, permanent, viable workforce to tap the vast natural resources of the North. Russia did it. Why can’t we?

We need to incentivize moving to the North big time.

You don't have to adopt or respect everyone's views. A certain amount of tolerance is necessary to build bridges, but there are some narratives out there that are bad news and can't be argued rationally. I worry about your fear of so-called globalism, because there's a risk of throwing away important international agreements on the environment, trade, labour conditions, and so forth that make the world safer and better for just about everyone. Think about chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's). If we didn't ban them internationally our ozone layer might have thinned to life-threatening levels. Fear can be a paralyzing force, as FDR recognized. Difficult as it can be, we have to be constructive and keep talking. Otherwise the Al Qaeda's and North Koreas of the world can grow worse and problems we didn't know existed can emerge and reek havoc.

I think we should walk away. Hard to see an upside to the extortionist tactics. As said and confirmed by data many times: Just as many jobs and companies are impacted on both sides of the Canada-US border by any reduction in trade. The U.S. has a slight trade SURPLUS with Canada. We don't have to make any unfair concessions, nor should we.

This is why we need government to step in. Leaving it to individuals to do better on the environment isn't working.

I don't know what this chain of posts is getting at. If you're saying we need real action to do more, that's good. If you're saying throw in the towel because people are hypocrites, so might as well give into lazy complaisance, that's weak. I'd like to know that the fish I eat aren't full of toxic oil by-products and chemicals that simulate the effects of estrogen. It's all fun and games until you don't have an oceanic food supply. What is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch ? The Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) is the largest of the five offshore plastic accumulation zones in the world’s oceans. It is located halfway between Hawaii and California. Plastic Accumulation It is estimated that 1.15 to 2.41 million tonnes of plastic are entering the ocean each year from rivers. More than half of this plastic is less dense than the water, meaning that it will not sink once it encounters the sea. 1.15 to 2.41 million metric tonnes of plastic are entering the ocean each year The stronger, more buoyant plastics show resiliency in the marine environment, allowing them to be transported over extended distances. They persist at the sea surface as they make their way offshore, transported by converging currents and finally accumulating in the patch. Once these plastics enter the gyre, they are unlikely to leave the area until they degrade into smaller microplastics under the effects of sun, waves and marine life. As more and more plastics are discarded into the environment, microplastic concentration in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch will only continue to increase. Estimation of Size The GPGP covers an estimated surface area of 1.6 million square kilometers, an area twice the size of Texas or three times the size of France. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch covers an estimated surface of 1.6 million square kilometers To formulate this number, the team of scientists behind this research conducted the most elaborate sampling method ever coordinated. This consisted of a fleet of 30 boats, 652 surface nets and two flights over the patch to gather aerial imagery of the debris. Sampling at different locations within the same time period allowed a more accurate estimate of the size of the patch and the plastic drifting in it.

I think that most amounts of foreign aid should be set based on the government matching donations from the public, so that the government doesn't do giveaways of taxpayers' money without the support of the people. This worked well in support of the tsunami victims. Did Canadians elect Trudeau knowing he would deploy tax revenues the way he has? Thinking back to the "boat people" of the 70's from Vietnam, Canada has a tradition of welcoming refugees. Legitimate refugees need support. So the next questions are, What constitutes legitimate refugees? What is reasonable support? I'm not sure most Canadians have grappled with these questions or asked how the government decided the answers to these questions. I know I didn't.

Again, separation has become a bit of a non-issue, especially among younger citizens. Quebec is given a wide berth on many matters. Interestingly, most of the current federal priorities are also Quebec priorities, except perhaps for Energy East, which Quebec doesn’t support. I still think that pipeline should proceed as far as Ontario. Ford might push for that as well.

The younger generations in Quebec and the rest of Canada don't seem to have the same sense of division as older Canadians/Quebecers. We seem to have found a reasonable middle ground that affords Quebec quite a bit of independence and the benefits of being within Canada. The rest of Canada seems to have a greater appreciation of Quebec and is coming across on the language front. There are still soft nationalists, but very few in Quebec or the rest of Canada would like to risk losing the benefits of the current arrangement. There's an unwritten rule that opening up constitutional debate in Canada is a dead end. It's better to seek interprovincial business opportunities and enjoy the cultural differences.

The consensus seems to be that even Trump's inner circle is worried about him. In fairness to Trump, he is blamed for a lot of controversial policies that many Americans support. I'm not fooled into thinking that he stands alone on these issues, not even close. Your proud support of him is more common than many of us in Canada and the U.S. like to think. That's perhaps the scariest part. Trump isn't acting alone and his government's policies have given foreign countries pause over what America is about. I guess we'll see how Trumpism does in the midterms.

The idea behind bilingualism is to get a basic understanding/appreciation of the second language and to ensure that those who are unilingual in an official language get the services in their respective language. Esperanto just adds confusion. It's all well and good to say it would be easier to have one official language, but that doesn't recognize the conditions of Canada's founding and continuing predominant language groups in Canada. You could say we should learn additional languages. These are offered as alternate courses in schools and in free international languages classes on weekends, but immigrants understand that Canada has two official languages, French and English. In the north and in indigenous communities, at least in Ontario, indigenous languages can be learned as a substitute. The groups that speak indigenous languages are much smaller than the groups that speak English and French. Nevertheless, there are many tax funded programs aimed at protecting these less widely spoken languages. We do a lot, but there are limits to what we can reasonably be expected to fund and achieve, and I think we test those limits in Canada.

Most of your points illustrate why Trump is so dangerous.

Technology can help, especially in terms of clean energy sources. I'd be careful messing with the atmosphere by pumping chemicals into it due to unintended consequences. The latest gambit, spraying salt into the atmosphere to lighten clouds and reflect light back into space could result in the salination of freshwater and the desertification of arable lands. We have to be careful.

What great policies are you referring to? Tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich and bankrupt the Treasury? Trade extortion against allies? Xenophobic immigration policy? Separating the children of illegal immigrants from their parents in prisons? Lying on a range of issues? Discrediting mainstream news? Attempting to subvert the independence of government agencies? Bowing to aggressive foreign quasi-fascist powers? Possible collusion with Russia to influence U.S. elections? Hurling insults over Twitter? Removal of environmental protections and refusal to sign the Paris Agreement? I'm pleased that Trump attacked the forces in Syria that launched that chemical attack. I like the expansion of the basic personal tax exemption. China needs to allow the value of its currency to rise. Mexico needs to raise its minimum wage in the auto sector. Some of the current trade policy may influence that. Otherwise there isn't much to like.

The reason that recycling, reducing and reusing is important isn't only to prevent adding more waste to landfills. It takes energy to produce products. Much of our energy is produced through the burning of fossil fuels, which emits greenhouse gases. Incineration of waste also emits GG. Transportation of waste emits GG. Reducing energy consumption is important.

I agree. Action should match policy.

FDR was a great president. Your characterization of him as a fascist is unfair and misleading. Internment camps were probably unnecessary. It was a war measure and not in the same category as a German concentration camp or even a Japanese POW camp, not even close. Yes Americans decide on their president.

Trudeau's policies push to reduce climate change. Trump's policies reduce climate change counter-measures. The work of past presidents is in the past.

Bilingualism is growing in Canada. Even in the most unilingual parts of Canada, there is mutual admiration and respect. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

I think you owe more than that to yourselves. You're better than that. Think of Lincoln and FDR...

We don't want statehood or to "join" the US, at least not as a state within the U.S.. If you want to try to hash out a union or partnership, I think many Canadians would see benefits in that, and it wouldn't upend our systems, cultures, or national priorities. There would be some compromise, but it would allow the new entity to adopt the best approaches from both countries without seriously impacting sovereignty. Canadians enjoy the climate and economic opportunities in the U.S., but we are guarded about compromising our cultures and safety net, and I don't just mean healthcare, unemployment, and so forth. I'm also talking about safety from the proliferation of guns (2nd amendment) and gun violence. A border is necessary. Canadians don't want the huge class divide and "other side of the tracks" phenomenon that maintains economically depressed areas, breeds resentment, and walls off the privileged through tax code, jerrymandering, and a politicized legal system. Americans are free to maintain that kind of society, but we don't want it in Canada. Having said that, if the price of being able to live and work anywhere in the U.S. is allowing Americans to do the same in Canada, I think most Canadians would be willing to take that risk if Americans pay taxes in Canada and respect our laws. We would do the same in the U.S.. It's security for Americans who seek a long term haven in a safe society. It creates long-term development opportunities for Americans in Canada. It also widens economic opportunities for Canadians. As part of the deal the compromises are maintaining a form of Obamacare in the U.S. to prevent pressure on the Canadian economy from health care migrants; Canada increases military spending to reflect our economic ratio to the U.S. economy. A border is maintained to allow both countries to set their own immigration, gun control and national security priorities. Otherwise not much else changes. Each country maintains its own domestic policies on the usual items: food and drug, environment, telecom, banks, monetary and fiscal policy, etc. There are compelling reasons for Canada to maintain its sovereignty that also serve American interests. Maintaining far-flung populations in our vast land is expensive, yet Canadians are willing to pay that price. Between the two systems right now, U.S. or Canadian, I think many within both countries find a lot to admire about Canadian society. Why mess with a success story? Adopt some of the best policies of both systems in a union, yet allow both countries' citizens to choose their own destinies, which are fairly aligned but not one and the same. If Americans live/work in Canada and decide they want voting rights and to become Canadian, they can apply to immigrate. Canadians living and working in the U.S. can apply to emigrate to the U.S. in a similar fashion, should they wish to do so.

It's just America First. No aspirations beyond that. That's why I can't understand Trump. There's not much there besides anger and extortionist deal-making.