Cartman

Agreed. I was hoping that Suzuki would have done better.

I have read your post and understand what you are saying, but I am saying that you are wrong. I do not believe in God, but I think it would be foolish to argue that this belief has had no effects on people. Recall the Thomas theorem, "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences". Canadian identity is being formed and will effect people. It is expressed in our institutions and by our laws. We may be multicultural, but we do not accept polygamy or female genital mutilation. These things are against our values. We do not live in a nation of "anything goes" because people desire order. You claim that evil is the result of ficticious identity and social grouping? I agree to a certain extent, but maintain that individuals are more than capable of hating other individuals. Many of the things you cite with perhaps the exception of genocide, are often expressions of individual acts, not group acts. OMG...what if the real Canadian was you Hugo!! I bet if you looked carefully, these people may have very different political perspectives, but they agree on some basics. The fact that they are willing to share and debate ideas about making Canada a better place to live demonstrates a common interest. Take a look at the crowds cheering for Team Canada early in the New year and then tell me Canadian identity is mere myth.

And so ends the useless academic pursuit of the social sciences and economics. Social, cultural and political groups do not exist, there are only individuals. We return you to your regularly scheduled program of individualism in the 1790's.

Yup.

So, there is no such thing as patriotism towards the US or Canada? How can one be patriotic to something that supposedly does not exist? Just because there exists diversity, this does not mean that there is no unity.

Why do you think that religious folks vigorously supported Bush? It was not his charm or his effective use of the english language. It was because more and more people are seeing that religious texts are being used as "evidence" or "proof" to oppose civil rights for some. As such, there is concern that these texts are spewing hatred and religous folks are scared. This is why so many religious folks voted Maple and they voted for Bush.

I think that some Canadians are too willing to identify "anti-Americanism" but less likely to point out "anti-Canadianism". I suspect that those who are concerned about Canadians protesting Bush are not really concerned about PM Martin. Any patriots want to defend Prime Minister Martin like they do President Bush?

The US has tried to ignore the rest of the world economically and politically and that is why they have a low $$ and why Bush has to worship political allies like Poland.

What scares me is that protests become the norm or boring and violence becomes too common.

What is "anti-Canadian to you? Are we too polite to refrain from identifying "anti-Canadian" values and actions?

Fine, but realize that you are going against much science. This was easy for those in the majority who believed the world to be flat.

I appreciate the perspective Eureka. This is an interesting take on the Senate and I will give it serious thought.

August is too kind. Statistics also show that even in Alberta, but most certainly in the rest of Canada including that part of Canada called Quebec, there are many "liberals" or so-called "socialists" that vote against right-wing parties. This is what I am talking about Argus. There is a difference between Canadians and Americans and I am sorry if you do not see the difference. The new generation is creating "Canadiana".

If Canadian values are not evident in our institutions, then where do they exist? Americans would certainly be upset if US flags or the Statue of Liberty were eradicated. What indicates "anti-Canadianism" to you? Certainly, you do not accept everything as equally valuable for Canada do you?! Does harmonization with the US indicate anti-Canadian sentiment especially if our institutions are more efficient?

I will do some reading on the Senate over the holidays, (possibly including the ones you suggest). But, the problem seems to be that there are many in the Senate (mostly Liberals because most gov'ts have been Liberal), that rarely show. Are they as productive as they should be? I was rather unhappy when they claimed to be against the FTA but were inneffective because they had little authority due to being appointed rather than elected and legit.

Do you think the protests around the world against the war in Iraq were successful?

A very simple question. I believe that Canadian values of compassion and progressiveness are indicated by the success of our social and political institutions such as health care, employment insurance etc. Do you agree?

When I was a kid, my folks taught me that apathy was a sickness and that if something bothered me, I should get off my ass and do something about it. Protesting, in my view, is a democratic tradition that should be respected. Having said that, I am explicitly not in favour of violent, destructive protesting as we have sometimes witnessed on the television. My question is whether others believe that protesting is a useful democratic tool? If the government does initiate legislation without a mandate (i.e. not subjecting policies to voters B4 an election), then should people just shut up and apathetically accept the legislation or protest?

Eureka said: I will be honest with you Eureka, you probably know more about what the Senate actually does than I do. But, I do not (yet at least) accept your argument that the Senate effectively plays the role of conscience for our gov't. IMO, this role is better played by the official opposition. How can it play an effective role when it is appointed by the governing Liberals? If Layton came to power and appointed all NDP Senators, would they represent the views of the Conservatives? I think August's point about having a duplicate layer of government for each level of government is also valid to an extent. I also do not go for the regional representation argument. The Senate will never be reformed to give an equal voice to all regions. Been there, tried that, never caught on. But, even if it did, there would likely be chaos. Imagine if we had a Senate comprised of an NDP/Bloc coalition and a Conservative fed. gov't. What are the chances of getting a budget through? If it did go through and there were clearly negative effects of that budget, who is to take responsibility? I am tired of the provinces and the feds blaming each other for ineffective government and I suspect the Senate would complicate matters further. Canadians have the vote and governing parties should be given a mandate by those who bother to vote. If we have a Senate with the ability to actually block legislation and send it back to MP's and then back to the Senate etc etc, the Senate would be duplicating services, costing more tax money to inevitably invoke the legislation that was mandated to the government via voters in the first place (i.e. FTA). As I said, I am not expert on the Senate, but I have yet to see an important role for it to exist or a way that it has given me any service. I will keep an open mind about this though. BTW, what is the term for a Senator? Is it for life?

I apologize for setting this thread on a tangent. I will open a new thread about the senate if people are still interested. I think it is worthwhile.

Let SSHRC/NSERC figure it out and our MP's can vote on it. We don't need an entire level of government for this. I have a serious problem with appointed, unelected politicians that never show. I have watched some of them being strolled in by nurses to their once a year ten minute meeting. If we cannot identify this as unwanted patronage then we should stop worrying about the sponsorship scandal.

I think that Iran's gov't will topple in time anyways. From what I understand, the moderates seem to be gaining influence. I think that Bush will just want to stay clear and let things go on. North Korea worries me more.

If you work for the feds, why are you worried about getting to work on time anyways?

So then why don't those on the right endorse the NDP plan to eliminate the Senate? I think that this is probably the worst example of patronage and it is perfectly legal! It is not hidden at all and I suspect that Senators have a measure of respect. All parties should endorse this and the plan to restructure representation in the House. That way we can better represent people cheaper. If the right had jumped on this issue with the NDP, the Senate would be gone by now.

Do you think Bush would want to engage in another war right now? I think that the US is too strained militarily and economically. Iran would be much more difficult to deal with than Iraq and I think the US would be really isolated then.