carepov

1) Most often, the people living in failed states are powerless, it's vey difficult to put much blame on them. 2) Yes, I agree - war is always a failure but some wars are successful. For WWII, perhaps a better way of looking at it is to judge specific operations or battles.

Fine, the US is unique, I suppose that it is also pointless to compare the USA of the 1970's to the USA of today. There's no problem here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png Actually I do not understand the concerns with being "soft on crime". What else matters other than: -Ensuring people are safe, as shown by crime rates -Minimizing the costs of the justice system (perhaps the biggest costs are the social costs of so many men locked up) Recently I saw a report on the justice system in Texas and the creation of a separate "softer" system to deal with drug-related crimes. It looks like their leaders were getting it right and making a big difference. Imagine, Republican politicians from Texas warning Canadians about the pitfalls of a "tough on crime" policy! I am "with the program" and am concerned with issues in Canada. For example, I am ashamed of the living conditions of our Natives and for the "Stolen Sisters". I am ashamed of Canada shipping out asbestos when we know that the product is killing people. You and I both agreed that "Canadians are no better than Americans" so why should I be any less concerned about the death penalty in some US states? I am concerned with innocent people being put to death. I am concerned when the State executes mentally handicapped people. I am concerned with the children growing up with no fathers in their lives. I am also concerned because when our leaders watch US politicians keep wining elections based on a "tough on crime" agenda guess what policies they implement here?

So it doesn't matter that only 0.11% of Canadian cases are sent to the US (where the Province pays the full cost of the service) and you are saying that regardless of how small this number was you would be right and I would be wrong. I suppose it doesn't matter if Cnadian health care is the same cost as,10% cheaper or 40% cheaper than costs in the US. In the end it all cancels out so numbers don't matter, eh?

Well here it is, small cities in Canada are the most crime ridden: http://www2.macleans.ca/crime-chart/

I addressed both: How Many Canadians Use the U.S. Health System? Do not come to the US for care: 99.39% Come to US for care electively: 0.5% Use the US for emergency care: 0.11% http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html This supports my claim that the use by some Canadians of US facilities has a negligible impact on Canadian Health Care costs. IMO, the US and Canadian Health Care systems acheive similarily good results, but the US system is much more expensive. As many companies are paying for their employee's health insurance, perhaps this is one of the reasons that so many jobs have been outsourced? And yes, Canada's system has many problems and yes Canadian jobs are being outsourced too.

There is no doubt that the USA is unique. This does not mean that it is not comparable. You think that 2.24 million Americans locked up—716 for every 100,000 citizens is quite well? I wouldn't be so sure about the relationship between big cities and crime, generally our largest cities are the safest. This is 2013, get with the program USA and stop the death penalty in all 50 states! Maybe not so much lately but you would have seen many comparissons coming from Canada that were quite favorable to the USA. US productivity, US unemployment rate, lower taxes, etc...

Regarding Canadians using health care in the US: from wiki: -A study by Barer, et al., indicates that the majority of Canadians who seek health care in the U.S. are already there for other reasons, including business travel or vacations. A smaller proportion seek care in the U.S. for reasons of confidentiality, including abortions, mental illness, substance abuse, and other problems that they may not wish to divulge to their local physician, family, or employer. -In a Canadian National Population Health Survey of 17,276 Canadian residents, it was reported that 0.5% sought medical care in the US in the previous year. Of these, less than a quarter had traveled to the U.S. expressly to get that care.[65] -A 2002 study by Katz, Cardiff, et al., reported the number of Canadians using U.S. services to be "barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home" and that the results "do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States."[ Created with Highcharts 3.0.0How Many Canadians Use the U.S. Health System?Do not come to the US for care: 99.39%Come to US for care electively: 0.5%Use the US for emergency care: 0.11% Source: “Phantoms in the Snow: Canadians’ Use of Health Care Services in the United States,” Health Affairs, May 2002. http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html

Many good points, I will respond to the ones where I disgree strongly I can't beleive that you are defending/excusing your justice policies. America is "tough on crime" with over 6 times as many inmates AND your crime rates are much higher as reflected my murder rates 2.7 times higher. These differences are way to large to be explained away by your excuses. At some pont you need to say, whoa, we have a problem! Canada pays for any services used in the US. The net savings are minimal/insignificant. No, the history of when the Death Penalty was abolished is besides the point. The point is that US governments kill people - that is wrong. Don't kid yourself about Americans not comparing themselves to Cnadaians or even putting down our country. One good example is during your ObamaCare debates. On one hand you have Micheal Moore, and on the other you have the Right painting us as a third world country where people are dying due to "socialized" health care. Yes, especially since the well-being of Canada depends greatly on the well-being of the USA I agree.

I wouldn't go so far as to call these pathetic, but I would say lame. Many comparissons are interesting and useful: 1. We live longer: Canadians born today will live an average of three years longer than Americans (81 years in Canada versus 78.7 south of the border). (5) We have a lower rate of suicide (11.1 per 100,000 people, versus 12 in the U.S.), (6) a lower rate of infant mortality (5.1 per 1,000 live births, versus 6.1 in the U.S.) (7) and our health care costs per person are much lower (US$4,445 per capita in Canada, versus $8,233 in the U.S.). (70) We attract more immigrants: Canada gets 5.65 per 1,000 people, compared to the U.S., with 3.64 per 1,000. 81. We don’t have out-of-control prison sentences: Last year 38,700 people were serving time in Canada, roughly 114 for every 100,000 citizens. That’s nothing. In the U.S. 2.24 million Americans are locked up—716 for every 100,000 citizens, the highest incarceration rate in the world. Canada ranks 136th. 82. Our government doesn’t kill people: Canada officially abolished capital punishment in 1976, but no Canadian inmate has been executed since 1962. By contrast, the U.S. put 43 prisoners to death last year alone, while 3,125 inmates continue to wait on death row. (86) We have far fewer murders: Our homicide rate is 1.73 per 100,000 people, compared to 4.7 in the U.S. If I were an American I would be very concerned about some of these numbers and I would hope that leaders would take notice and implement better policies.

Maybe not one-on-one, but articles like the Macleans article (Canadian media talking to Canadian readers) are very common, and IMO too common.

Yes, AW, I am embarrassed by the arrogance and hypocrisy of those Canadians that constantly claim "we are so much better than Americans!". Some comparisons are normal, and even very useful, but we do overdo it. I wonder if it's the same with Kiwis/Aussies, Austrians/Germans, Taiwanese/Chinese, Irish/British, Oklahomans/Texans...?

Why are you here on MLW discussing with me and with others? I am not "behind". My only objectives for being here are to express myself and therefore clarify and hone my opinions, and I appreciate the ideas and knowledge gained by thoughtful posters. Your article from Psychology Today was very interesting. As written in the article, the data is evidence that "religion has little to do with ethical conduct" - I appreciate knowing about this study and it will sway my opinions. Unlike what you say however, the data does refute (i.e. disprove) my claim. Your earlier article was informative too, thanks for sharing your views and encouraging me to learn more about the topic and re-assess my opinions.

The reference supports my point. I did not claim it was proof. Do you have anything to refute my claim that religious people are less likely to be criminals? I will retract the certainty of my statement that was sloppy and I regret it. Your reference does not prove me wrong however. It compares red (religious) states with blue (less religious) states. How about within the blue states, who is giving more to charities (excluding religion) religious or non-religious people? The study does not address this question. I suspect that it is religious people. I will try to explain my point in a different way: For example let's look at: "generosity". I hypothesize that, in a large population, there will be a normal distribution of people that are on the scale from complete selfish cheap-asses at one end to those that give 25% of their income and donate organs to strangers at the other. Now split the population into religious and non-religious. I think that the distribution would be similar but that the religious population would be on average more generous than the non-religious. Note: there are still plenty of non-religious people that are more generous than religious people.

I know, I did not mean to imply that it was. Are you disagreeing with me on the point I made? I would think that anytime someone puts another down another it is a way to feel superior. Why else put someone down?

Sure, both Canada and the USA would be even better places if we were less arrogant. Nobody chooses in which country they are born into so we may as well be happy with what we got and not put down others that happen to be born in another country.

Interesting read, notice how the claims are supported with external studies/links: http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/06/28/99-reasons-why-its-better-to-be-canadian/ and before b_c says it, here's a reason why its better to be American: -Americans have no need for comparing themselves to others

Modesty like humbleness as opposed to pride and arrogance. Yes, this is obvious. I respect everyone unless they give me a reason to disrespect them. I remember some story about Jesus standing up for a prostitute and washing her feet. You are wrong to think that "the idea that non-believers will burn in hell or otherwise be punished by a malevolent supernatural being" is common among believers. You are being judgemental yourself. I guarantee you that even if you exclude donations to their church/mosque/temple religious people would give more to charity in $$ and time than non-religious people. One of the prime tenets of Islam is to give alms to the poor. But the idea is enhanced and strengthened by religious teachings. Well, there is sacrifice for one's own self-interest - like saving money or getting a university degree. There's sacrifice for one's country - like serving in the army. Do you have kids? OK I'll take this one back, I have no good answer. I would argue that monogamy is a benefit to society. Dedication and loyalty are generally good traits. No, again you are assuming other people's belief's. One can accept reality AND get help and support from thier faith to move on. What you say has and does happen - but more often than not everyone is welcome into the place of worship and into the community - no questions asked. "And the sign said, "Everybody welcome, come in, kneel down and pray""

Yes, these are indeed good examples of despicable acts that require religious dogma. There is no doubt however that most despicable acts are independant of religious beleifs. My argument is the benefits of religion outweigh the costs. Here is a source for real benefits of religion: "High religious involvement, high importance of religion in one's life, membership in an organized religion, and orthodox religious beliefs are associated with less criminality. Areas with higher religious membership have lower crime rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlates_of_crime#cite_note-EllisBeaver2009-1

BINGO! Just do the same thing for religious ideas, too (note: for this too work you will need to stop making so many assumptions about people's beliefs) Yes, of course denounce, mock and ridicule the bad ideas. But elevate the many good ideas/values inspired by religion: -modesty -respect -non-judgemental -generosity -"the golden rule" -sacrifice -hard work -commitment -effectively dealing with grief and loss -building community You are correct, religion is not pre-requisite for any of these, but for many people, religion inspires and increases these virtues - and because of this society is better off.

OK, AW and b_c, you are right and I retract my claim that the 2008 election was about Iraq. Here the electorate held the Republicans accountable for their failed economic policies. The 2006 election (and in polling results around the same time) was where the electorate spoke out and clearly said, "the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake". Agreed?

I pretty much agree with everything that you wrote. -Yes, usually the entire West is to blame, not just the US. I'm sure that we would agree that the blame of course lies also with the local leaders of failed states. -Yes, once an invasion has started the invading powers should take full responsibility for ensuring that they do not abandon the people of that country. In this case, yes, concerns about cost pretty much go out the window. -We also clearly agree that the West made mistakes in waging war in Afghanistan. -We are both proud and thankful of all those that served and feel that the mistakes were primarily political and strategic. Here is the only main point where we disagree: Your opinion is that despite these mistakes the war was a success. My opinion is that these mistakes were bad enough to make the war a failure. The war was a failure because the results were much lower than what could have been achieved (security and human development) and the costs (human suffering and financial) were much greater than they should have been. The biggest blunder was a lack of resources, especially 2003-2010. The US and Briton is to blame because of the stupid invasion of Iraq AND the rest of NATO is to blame for their lack of courage and commitment. The US is also to blame for acting like such assholes towards many of their own allies and therefore hindering cooperation.

You are right and I regret bringing this source into the discussion. But, it is not the first time that I have heard the claim that religious people on average live longer, happier and more virtuous lives. If I come accross a reputable study that supports this claim I will let you know. First of all, would you mock Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama? Would you mock a "beleiver" that achieves great success in medicine, scientific research, athletics, the arts, etc...? Second, you make a lot of assumptions about religious belief that are flat out wrong for most people. 1. Religious belief is not a short circuit in the thought process; in fact for some people their faith will enhance their thought process. Think of Newton or Michelangelo. I'm not sure if Einstein was religious but he certainly did not mock religion like you. 2. Religious people do not believe in "fairy tails". The stories that you are calling "fairy tales" are not taken literally but figuratively. I am as much against religious extremists as you, and so are the great majority of normal religious followers. Yes of course fanatics calling on death, subversion and discrimination are to be harshly criticized and stripped of all power. But your disrespect of all religious beliefs only helps these very extremists hold onto their power and you are therefore you are working against your own aspirations.

Didn't you see any of the polls from 2006-2008? It WAS about Iraq. It wasn't me that made it the number one US election issue. The US electorate spoke lound and clear: the Bush Administration was a failure - they held the republican party accountable just like you said they should.

No, in 2008 the American electorate finally same to their senses and realized that the Iraq invasion in 2003, and it's handling since, was a quagmire and just like you said:

So are you saying that Iraq was deemed a sucess in 2004 and a failure in 2008 and both judgements are correct?