August1991

Here's my point: The Americans wrote a constitution that has existed for over two centuries. They created a society where power is passed peacefully between opponents without death. China, Russia, India, France have not done that. Even the UK has not done this. Indeed, no society has done this - except America. (Maybe Switzerland. Or the Netherlands.) ==== As a Canadian, several times I have stood beside a Frenchwoman and an American - who doesn't speak French. I have pointed out that America's republic has lasted longer than her five republics. I have reminded people from China that their language is one thing, but their method of choosing leaders another. Chou En Lai famously said to Kissinger: "We have yet to decide whether the French revolution is sustainable." Well, America has lasted longer than Sun Yat Sen and Mao Tse Dong. When this guy Xi (or Putin) hands over power like Trump handed the keys to the White House to Biden (despite what MSNBC says, Trump did), I'll believe that China (or Russia) are sustainable.

Reading this thread is like arguing with myself. So, I may be inconsistent. As John Maynard Keynes once famously said in response to a journalist who pointed out when he contradicted himself: "When I realise that I'm wrong, I change my opinion. What do you do?" ===== My OP: Each of us is born with the genetics of our mother/father, and the chance of our birth. Some of us are born so we can speak English easily, without accent. IMHO, this is privilege. That's it, that's all. ===== Why the English language is dominant is another question.

Michael, The Great War (1914-45) was a catastrophe for people in Austria-Hungary, East Prussia. It destroyed many civilised, truly multi-lingual cities - places like Montreal where unilingual people lived side by side. Nowadays, Montreal is a remnant of a European past.

There's a reason Hitler lost and people still speak Bulgarian today. Individuals chose.

Michael, In a world without walls, what defines a "Canadian"? Stephen Harper, an otherwise smart man, wrote a foolish book about the future: "Right Here, Right Now" A different man, Pierre Trudeau, had a better take on the future - if we do it right: "Federalism and the French-Canadians". === Any English-speaking Canadian should read both books (Trudeau's was a translated collection of texts) - and realise that Canada is, uh, the future.

"Communism"? You should use the term: "progressive". Recently, I've seen the term "socialism" creeping back. ===== Years ago, in Cold War/Soviet times, 1970s or so, I realized that whenever an American described themselves as a socialist/communist/marxist, it had nothing to do with any political theory. These people were speaking about America, and themselves.

GrittyLeftist, Compared to anyone born around 1490, when people knew nothing of calculus, I was born into a world - some 500 years later - when calculus made jet travel possible. In this sense, I am "privileged" - indeed, anyone born now in this world in the 2000s is rich/privileged because of the inherited knowledge of the past. ===== The future can be a very rich place. Unless we screw it up by arguments in the present of who has what. So, what makes the future rich? Discovers calculus?

So, once again, I ask, what will the Chinese do when they are "rich"?

In case anyone reads this thread, the transfer of Canada from France to England was the result of the Seven Years War (1756-1763) which in fact had two treaties. Many people in Canada view the Plains of Abraham as a significant battle place, Montcalm vs Wolfe, French vs English. This is false. In the late 1750s, there were far more significant battles, involving far more men between Prussia (weirdly allied with England) and Austria (allied with France) . I've walked around many of these battlefields. ==== BTW, Napoleon refought the battles.

There is a perception that China and Russia are protected from immigration. False. Japan? Even people in Japan are learning English. ===== Many people are travelling around, from here to there. Foreigners find a way to get to China, and a Japanese woman finds a way to meet a Westerner. An American meets a Russian woman in Hongkong.

As a Canadian (or Norwegian, Finn), we will face this problem best. It can be cold here. IMHO, only indigenous people, serious about change, survive.

I don't think that some of you quite understand the problem. There is no border. Tucker Carlton, Ann Coulter, Donald Trump - they live in a different century. ==== We have several billion people to bring into the Renaissance and through the Enlightenment. Quickly.

RB, I've always taken your posts as - interesting. ===== Kimmy, her posts have always intrigued me.

WW1 and WW2, 1914 to 1945, this period of European history - make no mistake, another 30 years of folly. Like the Europeans in 1789 to 1815. It happens. It happened in 1618-38. - when great-grandchildren forget. ===== IMHO, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was wonderful; its collapse terrifies me.

Yzermandius, For many reasons, I favour a federal system. In America-speak, I favour states-right. In Russia-speak, I was upset when Putin decided that he would name the 89 governors. ==== PEI is about 110,000 people. They have four federal seats. All things considered, I suspect that the people of PEI keep a sharp on their municipal bureaucrats, their provincial bureaucrats and their federal bureaucrats. The riding of Toronto-Centre has about 105,000 people. Too busy with their own lives, these people have no idea what their municipal politicians are doing - let alone any bureaucrats.

When has the transfer of State power in China or Russia ever occurred except that: Someone died. The guy agreed with the next guy. ===== In all of Chinese and Russian history, it has never happened that anyone alive gave State power to another guy, an opponent, an enemy. Heck, even in the UK and Sweden, they prefer to transfer "official" State power by death. ===== For better or worse, India's federal election of 1977 was significant. But I think its election of 1996 moreso.

Myata, Democracy? My simple definition has two requirements: 1) It is possible to change State power without death. 2) The State power is given to an opponent/enemy. ===== Who gets the power? I don't care. Most votes? Don't care. Random draw? Fine with me. ==== Make no mistake: When John Adams resigned in 1801, he established an important precedent. Look it up!

Argus, Those various fees/limitations do not exist "officially" in our health system now. ===== Our Canadian health system has been Soviet for years: It is two-tier but no one admits it. Worse, our Canadian health system is increasingly Soviet in a different sense: the money coming in is not connected to the money going out.

Health care is a service and it amounts to medical insurance. And medical insurance is a minefield. It defies discussion because people are discussing life, an existential question. ===== To understand my viewpoint, imagine that a pill/procedure/surgical table existed that would cure any ailment/cancer/heart problem - except that the pill/procedure cost $200,000 each year. Who would get the pill? Procedure? Surgery? In Canada, some people live in a Tommy Douglas fantasyland where everyone can have health care - while our GDP per capita is $60,000.

I was abroad at the time, and this was before Youtube, but I recall a non-Liberal federal candidate showing a hand written paper "No Two Tier System" during a debate. In Quebec, now, in 2021, everyone knows that we have a two tier system. ==== We'll see if this blue-eyed, smiling, happy, Irish-named, lousy French-speaking guy can defeat a Trudeau. Heck, Trudeau Jnr may even get his 170 seats.

Argus, Let me fix that headline: Biden, the UK and Australia announced a new military and defensive pact...

Myata, it seems to me that you are asking two questions: 1. Why are we having a federal question? 2. Why does the CBC exist? ===== 1. Our PM, Justin Trudeau, has the power to create the election. (Harper said to Obama that even a US federal president with majorities in Congress has less power/control than a Canadian federal PM in a minority government.) 2. If the federal government stopped funding the CBC, it would have to stop funding Radio-Canada. CBC/Radio-Canada costs about $1.3 billion per year. English Canada doesn't listen/watch the CBC. It's like NPR. French Canada watches and even listens to R-C.