Shwa

"There is only one supreme law of life: the survival of the fittest, with its corollary, the elimation (or, through a hazardous compassion, subjugation) of the unfit." I dunno dude, you seem to have fallen on a slipperly slope here by misapplying the leading theories of evolution which have been vastly reconfigured since the old fish to modern man diagram we are so familiar with. Thing of the past. There is no orderly march forward as a species and never has been. And now you are bogged down in defending mythos. Survival is all about environment and adaptations to that environment. In our present environment, we have medical machinery of all kinds to help us breath, beat our hearts, clean our kidneys, act as prosthetics, etc. If a person can survive in this environment they are "fit" enough to qualify. Kind of like early humankind used only certain rocks to make tooks because the other stuff wasn't up to the task. Consider our machines in the same light you would consider tools. They are made to modify our environment into things like, you know, agriculture, civilization, etc. Our present environment also includes a small little thing called "medical insurance" and thus, if this person has some or access to some that will help her run her machines and she qualifies to use it, then she is "fit" enough for our environment. So really, the only environment she is not "fit" to live in, is one you have created with your mythos. This is a typical problem and is solvable with a bit of intellectual shifting. Since her appearance and reports of her surgeries and pain have touched a nerve with you, you have mistakenly attributed your weakness for hers. You think she is weak because you would not be able to live with her afflications when in fact she is strong to survive in our modern environment whereas you would - I am guessing - likely kill yourself. In this scenario 'survival of the fittest' works perfectly fine.

"Western governments are actually are weak ones, they are controlled by the large interest groups." First off, I enjoyed the ideological sparring between "freedoms" in China versus Canada. I 'get' both arguments. Sometimes our Canadian smugness needs to be challenged by someone "honest" enough to take it on whether they are ultimately right or wrong. If you think freedom of expression is lighting a candle on Parliament Hill, try strapping some fake dynamite on your chest and then go to Parliament Hill and 'freely' tell all those burly RCMP you are going to blow up the Commons for some worthy cause or another. See how long you last. I am betting you'll be shot in the head before you can tell them the sticks of dynamite are a joke purchased at Bill's Joke Shop on Bank St. Light a candle at Tiananmen Square? It is only a matter of degrees based upon the factors that the ruling government decides is necessary to keep order and peace. Because you think a candle is innocuous is only a perspective culled from your culture. Our 'western' culture sometimes thinks it is superior. One of it's sad failings. However, to refer back to the quote above and address bjre, isn't the government of China also controlled by "large interest groups?" They might be comprised of different elements and have different goals and purposes, but they are - in effect - the same thing. And, with the growing middle class in China, eventually the distinctions between the composition of those groups in China or Canada or the West will disappear. One point is accessibility to to membership of those large interest groups. I am not sure how one becomes a member of the large interest groups that control China's government, but I do know there is a reasonable chance for anyone to access membership in these groups in the West. There are restrictions of course, like any other group membership, but I am more interested in the similarities, not the disparities.

"Still, if you've met an American or Canadian and been fooled as to their nationality ask yourself how often this happens with others." Hasn't happened yet eh?

What you have "exposed" is another in a long string of tactical disinformative conspiracy theories devised by monied interests to confuse an issue that is has already been decided. So... it isn't "news." As for us regular folk, no worries. It is only a treaty. And from all the historical evidence on how "the West" honours treaties, we know that as soon as the tables turn against them, they will void the treaty anyways. So no New Godless Communist Evil World Order regime is in the future. We'll just have to live with the present Fascist Old World Order for now.

No surprise. You ask a simple question... Even at the most basic level, Canada is complex and defies any hegemonic view, even among those majorities that speak the same language. Attempts to impose any sort of simplistic unified view of Canada or Canadians is always doomed to failure and, hopefully, worthy of pleasant and well meaning ridicule. So no, Canadian "identity" does not primarily consist of being 'not-American.'

What "money mess?" The politically driven budget statement that is likely bloated with 50% contigency funding? Once the next election rolls around expect that 24 billion dollar deficit to be halved and the Liberals claiming to be economic superstars and so on. The good news (for them) is that they have effectively shifted the focus away from the eHealth and Second Career boondoggles. Just in time. Governance by obfuscation. As for the suggestions from Christana Blizzard, well they are naive and uninteresting. That is why she writes for the Sun and not some more reputable news source. If the province was serious about reducing the 24 billion dollar deficit, then they would simple keep all the taxes collected for one year - corporate, sales & income. That ought to do it without reducing salaries, cut programs, slash services, sell off crown assets, etc. Get a calculator and do that math. I am betting should Ontario do that, we would see who the real 'have-not' provinces are in very short order.

"I found this interesting, has anyone else heard of this?" Read Marshall McLuhan. It is much more than a simple switch from one economic setup to another - or a mix - it is more about a redefinition of 'economics' altogether starting with the concept of 'value.' As an illustration of this, ask yourself how much you value the definitions of communism, socialism and captialism with regard to your experience and knowledge of these systems at work in the world. Can anyone remain an ideologue and still be worth listening to?