Kitch

I don't know that it's just Americans that don't know much about us though. My fiance's brother travelled Europe for three months, people that I met in teacher's college taught abroad in MANY different countries... and not many people know much about Canada. (I, without any intent on patronizing or insulting Americans, don't think a lot of Americans know much about any other countries). Maybe this is a problem, maybe it's not. Why would it be a problem though? (For Canada... it's a problem if Americans don't know much about the world when decisions made in America have an impact globally).

By the way, you didn't answer my question. Why do you care what other people in other countries think of us here? Why does it bother you if people laugh? (And how do you KNOW this to be true rather than just assume... because that's what you would do if you saw this in other countries?)

I don't know how fruitful this will be, but I'm going to try. White guilt... not necessarily 'liberal' white guilt. Feeling guilty about the way Natives were treated in the past is something many people claim to feel but are truly... apathetic. So dude, your beef is with THESE teachers. Not some stigmatized group of people who you've accused. You refer to liberal/socialist teachers. Well, you know what? I would probably fit your description of THAT group. I don't think this logo is offensive. Nor do the teachers, who are also what you'd describe as liberal, that I know who are advocating for KEEPING the logo. I read a poem written by some student somewhere, distributed by a Native studies teacher that is an appeal to those trying to get rid of the logo... an appeal to KEEP it. These are liberal teachers who are on the same side as you... in this case. So please don't use the word 'liberal' in a derogatory fashion to describe how teachers are ruining YOUR world! There are different people who try to, as you say, sanitize Canadian society. However these are different people with different agendas and you're trying to consolidate them into one 'enemy'. And that enemy, to you, is liberals... even though many people who you brand as such are on your side in some cases. In fact, I DON'T have a 'real' sense of national pride. That does not mean that I am apathetic by any means. (And to give you a lesson in logic, me not caring what other people in other nations think of how Canadians choose to live their lives does not make me apathetic in the LEAST to the problems that we have in our society... why would I be here discussing these things otherwise?). I don't really even know what it means to have a sense of pride for your country. Canada is a land mass that MANY people call home. Those people are diverse in every way from ethnicity to political views to taste in food! What is it, exactly, that we all have in common that we can use to identify us as "Canadian"? We live in Canada... that's about it. So, perhaps we can have pride in our chosen way of life, meaning that we're proud of the laws that have been decided on by our collective society. INCLUDING the freedom to choose how one lives and the freedom to express oneself. So the reason that I say I have no 'real' sense of national pride is because I have trouble with that definition... NOT that I'm apathetic. It's funny that the majority of the things that you've listed are christian traditions. I, personally, have no problem with most of those symbols. Nor do I have a problem with anyone displaying ANY symbol that they choose. I, though, don't like the idea of the lord's prayer being said in any institution that is publicly funded. I'm Canadian. I am almost everything that you would describe as a typical Canadian. But I am atheist. Why should I have to partake in some religious tradition that I choose not to? Why should other people be forced to do so? Particularly kids who are too young to make a decision about what religion, if any, they want to follow? What does religion have to do with the law anyway? Why should any prayers be said before our law makers begin the process of law making? Also, the national anthem is indeed played every day in every publicly funded school. It's not, however, in every private school. If you're so worried about the indoctrination of your kids, why don't you indoctrinate them using your own mold? The diversity of teachers mirrors the diversity of Canadian society, in EVERY way! Exposure to ideas is not a bad thing. Personally, as a self proclaimed 'liberal', I read as much conservative literature as I can... as well as leftist literature. I tried to... and will finish... Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". I was recently convinced, by my conservative (future) brother in-law that corporate taxes might be a bad thing. Having an open mind is not a bad thing. Forcing yourself on others very well might be! "Schools" don't try to "program" students in the way that you're claiming. Read some Ministry curriculum documents and see what is prescribed by law to be taught to kids in public schools. Some teachers will try to force their views on kids... teachers from all positions on a 3D spectrum. Others will simply present ideas and let the kids decide for themselves. Some teachers don't even do this and simply have students read text books... so the students are indoctrinated by what they perceive as 'truth' because it's written in a text book whose authors might have a particular agenda! You don't understand the issues surrounding public education... at least you haven't shown an understanding here. But if you'd like, we can talk about that too. But I can only give my perspective and won't claim to be privileged to any absolute truths. So in the end, open up your mind and STOP blaming the actions of these particular people on LIBERALS!!!

I wasn't aware that I was privileged enough to converse with somebody who knew Hitler so intimately so as to know what he would have done given different circumstances. What would have happened if the "west" flexed some muscle? It would have turned into a body building competition. So an eternal arms race is a good thing? Or just until the richest 'nation' wins this race... and then they get to do what they want around the world. Oh shit... I think I just had deja vu!

They... WE... are not idiots. Interference doesn't necessarily mean non-violent interference. Read up on what the U.S. did in Nicaragua or Guatemala or El Salvador. People in the middle east don't like the way the U.S. supports Israel. Israel is killing Palestinians. Therefore, THEY see this as America helping kill Arabs/muslims. Whether we agree or not with that point of view is irrelevant. That's how they see it. Just as some people may think that 911 was a declaration of war... that's how THEY see it. Perhaps it would be a better approach to resolve problems to TRY to sort this out. Maybe that's not possible but you can't claim that it won't work if it's never been attempted. I, no doubt, will be called naive because I think that there are ways to resolve problems other than through violence. After all, this is what I've been told my whole life when it comes to dealing with problems with another person, or people. It seems that the same way of life doesn't apply to politics or relationships between countries.

If you think the "war" was started on September 11th 2001, you have a lot of research to do my friend. I'm not claiming to know who 'started'... "it", but it definitely didn't happen that day. Do you really think that people blow up buildings for no reason? And do you really think that people clever enough to pull something like that off would do something like that for no good reason? But this thread is about helicopters and what I've said seems to be something that a lot of people would rather not discuss because they might not be justified in their advocation of killing people.

I agree that our understanding of certain words is diverse. I don't necessarily disagree with your definitions, but they are YOUR definitions. I'd like nothing more than to engage in this conversation about the meaning of different political/philosophical paradigms... but it seems that there aren't many people willing to do so. Many are happy with knowing what they know and knowing that other people are wrong. But I'd enjoy it if you started a new thread and tried to have that discussion anyway!

Well, we as Canadians, at least the people that I associate with, don't really know a lot about the specifics of Canadian history. Meaning we (my circle) don't care a lot about wars that happened in the distant past. Generally, 'we' know that Canada was where the loyalists came before/during the American revolution, and that there was a war between the English and French which the English won. Also, it's not fair to expect a teacher to be a history buff either. I'm a science teacher and don't ever discuss Canadian history with my students. If I was an elementary teacher, perhaps I'd need to know some more about history, but what level would a grade 6 kid need to understand the specifics? Only a high school/university level educator, in my opinion, would need to have a great understanding of the subject. What, exactly, is the importance in knowing what happened in specific battles... or knowing about what I described in any more detail than I described it?

I'm glad you enjoy! I'm sure I piss some people off too. (I get a little emotional/passionate too). But dude, let's discuss, then, what you mean by "white liberal guilt". Is it simply feeling bad for what our ancestors did to natives? Does this mean that part of the conservative paradigm is to not experience such guilt? It's simply a group of teachers (and whoever else they're working with) who feel that the symbol is offensive. That's their opinion and they are entitled to it. But these people do not represent Canada. And if they did, why do you really care? What does it mean that it makes "us" look like overly sensitive babies? And who are you so worried about holding this opinion of us?

I'm on board, but... You can't simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

Ya, this is a move that benefits the majority of Canadians. It allows our military to kill some more people in Afghanistan. I feel so safe. (Clearly I really have no idea what these helicopters are really for)

What would it mean for the U.S. to respect us more? Why do we even feel a need for this? Besides the fact that it's ridiculous to want the respect of a country when a country is nothing more than a geographical area. A lot of Americans, I'm confident, do respect "us"... our piece of land. I'm sure that there are a lot of people that respect a few Canadian people too. I think the point of this thread is to advocate for Canada having a stronger international voice. I want to ask, sincerely, why?

And a good Canadian boy Matt Stairs got a ring!

It's even more likely that something isn't newsworthy because it might interfere with a company's (either owned by the media corporation or one that provides a lot of advertising dollars) ability to sell some product. I think Mr. Canada has a crush on you.

Thanks for that. (The whole thing... I just didn't want to repost your whole message). I still don't understand why a president, even traditionally, wouldn't stay in office for more than two terms. I guess that happened here with Chretien, but I wasn't aware that it was a tradition. If Canada, or the U.S., was to elect a leader that was great for a lot of people, then why shouldn't that person be allowed to stay in office? (My question is in general and not necessarily directed at you... but feel free to express an opinion). If you're referring to me asking about the nature of patriotism vs. unpatriotism, I assure you I didn't intend to push my opinion on anyone (although I do have a very strong opinion on the matter). I was simply asking a question. I wanted to know why some people don't think that branding some one unpatriotic ISN'T detrimental to society. I have nothing to say about your President. He makes himself look foolish enough already. SNAP!!! Just joking. Have you seen Harold and Kumar II? I love the scene with President Bush.

Hahahahahahaha

Dude, again... White Liberal guilt? I consider myself to be very liberal (not a supporter of the party!)... I am definitely sensitive (to the point of being a wimp)... and I am white... but I don't think that the name and logo at West Hill is offensive!!! So it's guilt felt by some group of people, if you MUST identify a group, that have this cause in common and not necessarily their political views!! Red men is offensive. It could be considered a derogatory racial label. Those schools should have changed their names. But I don't think West Hill needs to. I live 5 minutes away from West Hill C.I. (and Thomson... without a 'p') and I didn't even know what their school logos were! Stop labelling everything that you disagree with liberal!! What do you mean it makes "us" look like wimps? Who is "us" and why do you care what you look like to whoever it is you're trying to keep up appearances for?

Bud, stop labelling everything that you don't agree with as 'liberal'. And by "these" teachers, I REALLY hope you're not implying teachers in general. I said HOPE, I didn't accuse you. These particular teachers may be overly sensitive (not necessarily liberal). And it's not wrong to question whether the group depicted is offended. To assume and move on that assumption is unnecessary though.

Is there an easy way to put quote boxes around other people's posts? Separate ones I mean? I've been copying and pasting the codes and it sucks! They work in the lab for the same reason people work in the office. It's a choice. But the point is that people in the lab and people in the office make equal (if not leaning more heavily on the lab and NOT the office) contributions to the 'success' of the company. In reality, there are fewer people who have the lab skills compared to those who do whatever is done in an office. But that's besides the point. I was sort of mocking those who would use the euphemism. I know I'm not part of the "we". It's difficult to communicate subtleties of messages on internet forums. Well, my father is intelligent enough, hard working enough and skilled enough to do so. Unfortunately, because he only makes $1000/week, he is unable to save enough money to begin doing so. There are many people who do try, and many who fail. There are also many companies that exploit their employees like this and violate union rules but when they're found guilty of wrong doing, they dissolve the company and start up under another name. All that I'm saying is that the system is built to benefit equal people unequally (I'm glad that you acknowledge that). The opportunities for people with money to both make money AND prevent others from joining the club don't exist for those without money. People are indeed unequal in ability and such. But I'm not talking about the abilities of unequal people. I'm talking about the opportunities available to people who provide equal contributions to the betterment of society. But it DOES matter why certain people don't benefit equally. Plumbers work just as hard (harder in my opinion) as anyone else and provide a service that is EXTREMELY valuable to everyone. They're paid well, but there are many occupations that are less valuable to society yet pay more.

I'm not advocating for capitalism... I have my own views about why it is a bad system (and it has little to do with money/economics). All that I'm saying is that some people hold contradictory opinions with regard to the ability/right to succeed and who has that right. Not that I know this guy is one of those people, but it seems odd to want your company to not struggle but also not save money so as to prevent a struggle. Given my views and the fact that things are unlikely to change much very soon, I'm all for a mixed market.

Oh I know that we're not currently an exclusive club. I'm saying that I don't want Canada to become so. And I don't think that our actions/morals should be based on what other countries do/believe. We should base them on what we (insofar as "we" can agree) think is right.

First of all, it seems that the use of the word 'skills' by pro-free market types is sometimes a euphemism for 'willing to do things we don't want to do'... but we still pay them less. I used to work at MDS Pharma services who perform blood testing as part of clinical trials for novel drug licensing. The people who worked in the lab, doing the actual testing, which is indeed a skill, were paid FAR less than were the people in the offices upstairs. The people who made more money than lab technologists included administrative assistants, marketing consultants, etc... I'm sure you can come up with a list of positions in a typical corporate office that can and SHOULD be considered supplemental, equal or dependent on the people who perform the main function of the company. Why do these people make so much more than those in the lab? Those jobs wouldn't exist without the lab. Perhaps the lab wouldn't expand without the corporate offices, PERHAPS, but that doesn't justify higher pay... it justifies EQUAL pay. And mind you, this isn't considering the 10 million in severance pay the CEO was given after losing much money for MDS. Why is it that my father, who is a carpenter, worked on a renovation at Osgoode Hall and installed some 'special' doors that the contractor charged $2400 for each, yet my father, who could install 3 a day, was paid $1000/week? Materials don't account for the price... and nothing else justifies such a difference. The company could earn $36K a week off my father's sweat, but still pays him $1000 a week? You're not acknowledging that capitalism benefits equal people unequally. That should, in my opinion, be fixed. Not everyone who doesn't benefit from a free-market is stupid, lazy or uneducated. "All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality" (Martin Luther King Jr.) yet opponents of what you call a "parasitic system" seem to believe otherwise.

All I'm saying is that as a Canadian I'm starting to feel like we're the 3rd or 4th kid in the tree house and changing the rules to whatever game is/was being played, especially to prevent people from doing what we (our recent ancestors) did. Like I said, maybe we need to be careful, but I don't like the idea of Canada being an exclusive (elitist) club.

My bad... I was actually only vaguely familiar with the declaration and the constitution, so I just read the declaration and part of the constitution (damn that thing is long and detailed!). From what I saw in the constitution, I don't really think that much should be changed. I'm guessing that you were referring to Canadians and their interpretation of the second amendment earlier. Well, I do think that is one that needs to be re-examined. Its purpose was to allow people in the colonies... states... to protect themselves from the British standing armies and/or the "savages" (I suppose). Well, there are no more foreign armies within the U.S. and Natives don't seem to be attacking people. The only reason to give people the right to bear arms would be to protect themselves from each other. Is this a legitimate concern? Perhaps. But it is entirely possible that this mindset leads to the necessity. A self serving prophecy if you will. Constant suspicion of people that you live with, whether you know them or not, doesn't necessarily lead to a safe environment. But, I'm Canadian and don't live and have never lived in the U.S., so I'm just offering a point of view from without. The 11th amendment is in direct conflict with part of NAFTA... the right of a company to sue a government if that government prevents the company from profiting. An example of this is (I'm sorry I can't reference it because I can't remember enough of the details to find it) when Canada banned some ingredient used in a particular pharmaceutical because it causes health problems and the American manufacturer of the pharmaceutical sued the Canadian government. Just the fact that this is able to happen isn't right. The 5th and 6th amendments seemingly doesn't apply to all people but only to Americans... and even then only certain Americans. Maybe I don't understand it as it was intended, but does the 15th amendment not say that people cannot be denied the right to vote based on skin colour but it's up to Congress to decide if it wants to follow this? Why does the 22nd amendment exist? What is the problem if the people want to elect somebody president for longer than two terms? I don't necessarily think that these parts of the constitution need or ought to be changed, but maybe the way that they're interpreted. Or maybe the people need to, as the declaration states, realize that they are the ones with the power and prevent their government from interpreting the constitution in a self serving way. Again, just a humble outsider's opinion/questions. What do you think?

Did anyone ever think that maybe we let people in because it's in their interest rather than our own? Yes we need to be careful, but the application process can't be a selection process based on who can offer us the most.