carepov

Yes there is a better example: The Tea Party

Try telling that to the Reform Party.

Sorry, snowbirds was the wrong word, you are correct. I would guess that are also many Canadians that have been buying up houses and actually moving south. I don't have stats though.

Indeed, the USA has a better climate, better baseball, football and basketball, more nobel laureates and has the best people in nearly any field. It also has freer firearms ownership and the best hot dog eating contests. But what really matters? Imagine that you died now and were re-incarnated as a baby being born today. You can choose to be born either in Canada or the USA - all the rest is up to chance. What country would you pick and why?

I don't have stats, I suggest that you look up "Canadian snowbirds in Florida, Texas and Arizona"

Perhaps for the same reasons that people move from Montana to California or from Washington to Texas. No, on average, the climate in the USA is much better than in Canada. How about you try to address the points I made earlier about how Canada is freer than the USA? (note: a I attribute a great deal of Canadian freedom to the protection of the USA.)

Attempt #2: a) Canadians immigrate to the US then, as dual citizens, move back to Canada and their return is not included in the numbers of US emigrants to Canada. Retired Canadians move south for the better climate

Canadians have a greater freedom of mobility than Americans?

These are good points, and I mostly agree with you – although I could debate either side. Here are some points that support the idea that Canada is freer than the USA: -730 of 100,000 people in the US are incarcerated, vs. 114 in Canada -On average Canadians are safer than Americans (freedom from fear) -There is a higher poverty rate in the US than in Canada (freedom from want) -The average legal drinking age in the US is higher than in Canada -I would guess that there is more freedom to smoke marijuana in Canada than in the US -There is more tolerance of homosexuals in Canada -You are freer to get an abortion in Canada Also, historically, Americans fled to Canada due to slavery and the Draft. Canada is bigger in land area. Canada is wealthier than the USA on many per capita metrics. The USA has a much larger debt than Canada. Canada is wealthier in terms of natural resources.

I love America too, but I must disagree. Bigger? yes and no Richer? yes and no Freer? I would say that Canada is freer - and always has been historically. What makes you think that the USA is freer than Canada?

Do you think that the USA is no better than the Soviet Union or the Japanese Empire?

The issue is: who do you trust? Do you always believe the US or Canadian government? My comment has nothing to do with gratitude. I am grateful for our relative freedom, prosperity, good government and security. You are right, relative to most countries, Canada is nice, merciful and just. I would even argue that relative to any superpower/empire in all of history the USA is the most virtuous. Nevertheless, when it comes to issues of war including the War on Terror, the US administration cannot be trusted. Would you agree?

A major point that I did not successfully get across is that my focus is on the PREVENTION of these problems not so much dealing with the problems afterwards. This is your ideology getting in the way of reality. Eradicating polio is one example of a good government program. Many large infrastructure projects make sense too, for example James Bay. There is also more common sense than not in Central Banks, hospitals, schools, etc.... How are you measuring poverty? Of course we want happy people. The UN is very concerned with education. One good measurement is literacy rates. It sounds like you support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as I do, and the UN of course. In the example I gave of “housing first”, money is saved by preventing 911 call to pick up homeless people. I cannot say that they have been conclusively proven but potentially these are ideas that would save the taxpayers money – again it looks like your ideology is prematurely ruling out potentially good ideas. No not at all. In this discussion I am advocating for government programs that prevent major obstacles in peoples lives (especially children). Yes I do “like our society” and think that it can be improved in many ways. Ideally, I would like to be able to say “the probability of a having a successful life depends mostly on the choices a person makes for themselves (merit) and not on the family that a baby is born into (luck).” I see many Republican policies as counter-productive towards the vision – similarly to the article in the OP. I agree.

Good points. Maybe you are right, ahhh the good ole' 80's...

We’re on the same page – we want success and we believe in meritocracy. I am also against the idea of giving people a free ride – yes, people need to overcome obstacles to succeed. The devil is in the details – would the great individuals have succeeded without overcoming some obstacles in their childhood? Probably not, we would both agree. BUT, would these individuals have succeeded if they were born with FAS? If they were malnourished? If they were abused or neglected? If they were surrounded by other similar obstacles as children? Yes, again surely we agree that governments should not be inserting obstacles to level the playing field. Again the devil is in the details – this time we need to ask: what obstacles should be taken away? First of all, government/community programs are not an all or nothing proposition. Just because we decide to help children in one neighbourhood overcome the obstacles of gangs or hunger, does not mean we need to hire one TA for every retarded kid a wheelchair. Nuttiness and ballooning costs are not inevitable – I do however agree that often common sense is sometimes lacking in government. Second of all it is nutty not to prevent future problems when the costs of prevention are a small fraction of the costs of the future problems! Ensuring that kids are healthy and educated is the best example. Here are two more examples of this principle of pay now and save later or win-win government programs: 1. Some cities (Portland, Oregon, I think, Winnipeg, too) have asked – what would be a more effective method of managing our problem of homelessness – the status quo or a new “housing first” program that gives people a place to live, more or less unconditionally. The studies are conclusive, when done right, the “housing first” program is CHEAPER because it saves ambulance and police and other resources. 2. Ontario asked should we pay for a limited number of fertility treatments for couples? My first reaction was “no way this is elective medicine!” BUT it turns out that when couples receive “free” fertility treatments they tend to be less aggressive (fewer eggs inserted, I think) and therefore there is a huge decrease in multiple births. Therefore it is actually CHEAPER to pay for fertility treatments up front and save later on neo-natal care. When looking at a win-win program, it makes no difference if we are in a prosperous or poor economy as it is a good investment for the economy. My only fundamental disagreement here is with your claim that this is a fundamental disagreement. Again, I am not advocating national programs. Yes. What changes would you make today to address these issues/goals that we agree on? Yes it is tricky and you are right, sometimes, despite our best intentions, our “help” can backfire. That is why we should focus on the “no-brainers” first, for example – programs to eliminate FAS and others that help children, and even these should be studied carefully to ensure maximum efficiency. It depends, sometimes government programs are the only thing that works. Again it depends, often “it seems” like problems are getting worse, but we often do not realize how much things are improving. Again, it depends, however I am quite sure that hospitals are not intentionally causing accidents and illness in order to create more demand on hospitals. I am sure that Child and Family Services are not trying to ruin kids’ lives to justify and expand their work. I am confident that Corrections Canada is not intentionally making people more likely to commit crimes so that we can expand prisons. I do however have some doubts about privately-run US prisons…

OK, how about you (and other modern day NHL poo-pooers) tell us what were the glory days of hockey? Business wise and "quality" wise what were the best years?

Regarding the interview of the US ex-guard, he basically said, "I did not consider it torture at the time but yeah it was definitely torture." I saw it on the CBC National within 1-2 days of Khadr's return to Canada - unfortunately I cannot locate the link. These organizations (USSC, IRCC, AI) are dedicated to being unbiased - the Red Cross one-sided, really? Of course there is no such thing as perfect objectivity, but they are more trustworthy and objective than any government or military and specifically the Bush Administration. Yes, Gitmo surely was no gulag. However, it is probably not as nice a place as you imagine. When you had Team Rumsfeld saying, "It's OK to torture - just a little bit...", looking for my source I came across interviews of several ex-Gitmo guards you may be interested in hearing their descriptions, look at what happened in Abu Ghraib - to me it adds up to torture. Perhaps not, but I'll put another way - if Khadr and other detainees would have been processed as POWs as per International Law, you would have seen no credible condemnation and criticism of the US on this issue.

Yes! Also, we should deport this traitor and his whole family back to where he came from! How could we allow such a traitorous bloodline into our country!

Thanks for the response. By "treatment" I meant everything, the whole process, from his capture until transfer to Canada. I disagree - I think that he was tortured - based mainly on an interview with one of his torturers that admitted to torturing him. Does it bother you that he was <16 years old when captured? Does it bother you that the "Gitmo process" was declared illegal by the USSC, the IRCC, Amnesty International? Omar's case may be almost insignificant and the whole "Gitmo process" is probably not a game changer but IMO it was still a big step in the wrong direction. IMO if Khadr and other detainees would have been processed as POWs as per International Law, you would have seen no credible "defenders of Omar".

Business wise, you are right, it’s not all rosy for the NHL. But overall in the last 20 years it has definitely improved. I suggest that the best metric is the combined net worth (adjusted for inflation) of the entire league: “The average NHL team is worth 47% more than it was before the lockout that cancelled the 2004-05 season” http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2011/11/30/the-business-of-hockey/ Remember, this is despite the Great Recession. Yes, IMO your assumption “that the number of hockey players is roughly proportional to the population” is a bad assumption. You didn’t even include the expanding pool of players outside of NA. Your own article seems to contradict your point. Yes, ten years from now there may be a dip in the pool of available Canadian hockey players – but notice that “Hockey Canada membership peaked in 2008-09”, to me this means that the current pool of potential Canadian NHL players is at/near its peak. Training has been getting better every year so today’s group of NHL players have been through better training than those of the 80’s and 90’s. My friends and colleagues that played competitive hockey as youngsters and now have kids in the game are amazed at what today’s kids do! I maintain that NHL Hockey in 2011-2012 is at its highest “quality” ever.

Well if it came up I would, but I usually try to avoid semantic disputes but somehow got myself entangled into this one… You are right “terrorist state” is not a good term and should not be used at all. No, you misunderstood. IMO, using the term “Western terrorism” (eg: Shock and Awe) is fine and I am opposed to it as well. My only suggestion is to avoid calling any countries “terrorist states”.

Well if I can make a suggestion, I would stop labelling Canada, the US and UK as “terrorist states”. Many people would wrongly assume that you are a jihadist and this is not helpful in a discussion as it fuels the nationalist propaganda that you seek to avoid. If you want, you can replace my “War on Terror” buzz phase with “War in Afghanistan 2001-, Iraq War 2003-2011, War in NW Pakistan 2004-, and other operations against al-Qaeda and other militant Islamists”

I know. You are bringing up semantics and I agree with your point but IMO the semantics are irrelevant. By the way, which countries do you consider "terrorist states"?

Even if it is mis-named, the War on Terror is real: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror Of course there is appetite to win, who starts a war to loose?

Well one way is to kill all people using or advocating that methodology. (Not that I recommend it.) Yes it is a stupid buzz phrase but it is widely used and understood. Do you have a better phrase to describe the "War on Terror"?