Is canada in worst shape now ?

[Army Guy]

An interesting remark made by a vet. I think he has some valid pionts.

VETS OPINION

[Riverwind]

An interesting remark made by a vet. I think he has some valid pionts.

Since he does not enumerate the 'changes' that bother him it is hard to comment further, however, I suspect he is a man of his generation who is not willing to accept certain social changes such as acceptance of gay relationships. If that is the case then his opinions are about as significant as a vetran of the US civil war that laments that society accepts that black ands whites should marry.

His blanket condemnation of Canada and Canadians because the Liberal party's failing is also extremely unfair. The blame for the the current political situation rests almost entirely with Quebequers who vote for an obstructionist party like the BQ. If they voted for the CPC or a federal equivalent of the ADQ then the Liberals would have been gone long ago.

The last point is, I find quite pathetic that many conservative supporters seem to connect the worth of Canada to the party that is in power (i.e. if my party is in power then Canada is great, if my party can't get elected then Canada is sick). It is a not so transparent attempt to avoid asking the question: what is wrong with my party that it cannot appeal to the majority of urban voters.

[tml12]

An interesting remark made by a vet. I think he has some valid pionts.

Since he does not enumerate the 'changes' that bother him it is hard to comment further, however, I suspect he is a man of his generation who is not willing to accept certain social changes such as acceptance of gay relationships. If that is the case then his opinions are about as significant as a vetran of the US civil war that laments that society accepts that black ands whites should marry.

His blanket condemnation of Canada and Canadians because the Liberal party's failing is also extremely unfair. The blame for the the current political situation rests almost entirely with Quebequers who vote for an obstructionist party like the BQ. If they voted for the CPC or a federal equivalent of the ADQ then the Liberals would have been gone long ago.

The last point is, I find quite pathetic that many conservative supporters seem to connect the worth of Canada to the party that is in power (i.e. if my party is in power then Canada is great, if my party can't get elected then Canada is sick). It is a not so transparent attempt to avoid asking the question: what is wrong with my party that it cannot appeal to the majority of urban voters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Changes that began in 1968" seem to refer namely to the start of the Trudeau years.

Trudeau was not who believed in a strong army, preferring diplomacy, compromise, and other left-leaning strategies. With that, he decimated the armed forces.

If he is referring the the Liberal handling of our armed forces, I am not sure you can really disagree with his opinion and the sad financial state of our armed forces today (think, submarine...)

[Riverwind]

If he is referring the the Liberal handling of our armed forces, I am not sure you can really disagree with his opinion and the sad financial state of our armed forces today (think, submarine...)

It is difficult to know, however, even though I agree that the state of the military is appalling I still do not equate the health of the country with the health of military.

[Army Guy]

Since he does not enumerate the 'changes' that bother him it is hard to comment further, however, I suspect he is a man of his generation who is not willing to accept certain social changes such as acceptance of gay relationships. If that is the case then his opinions are about as significant as a vetran of the US civil war that laments that society accepts that black ands whites should marry.

I think he has indentified the problems, he is saying in the para below that the qualities listed are not in most of todays Canadain citizens or it's goverment.

The Canada I volunteered to fight for was a Canada worthy of any sacrifice. It was a brave, bold, vital country -- a country held in high esteem by its people and by the rest of the world. Its citizens, with few exceptions, were hard-working, self-reliant, honest, ethical and kind people who looked after their own and helped those in distress. Its governing politicians, again with a few exceptions, were genuinely ethical and tried hard to make laws that were in tune with the times.

I think he using the liberals as an example, and a good one, but not the only one. that most of todays Canadian citizens rarely act on our goverments behavior, and consider it the norm now. Just my opinion.

In 1968, Canada began to change, and those changes have continued until now, when the Canada of today only remotely resembles the Canada of the first half of the last century. The changes are far too many for me to recount in this letter. It is sufficient to say that a country is reflective of its citizens. And polls indicate that the Liberals, despite a record of sleaze, waste and dishonesty, are in the lead in voter preference. What does that say about Canadians?

[Riverwind]

I think he using the liberals as an example, and a good one, but not the only one. that most of todays Canadian citizens rarely act on our goverments behavior, and consider it the norm now. Just my opinion.

I think he is suffering from selective memory syndrome. If anything, Canadians are much less tolerant of bad behavoir by politicians:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

Sir John A. Macdonald, the country's first prime minister, weathered the CPR Scandal which blew up in 1873 and forced him out of office for five years. He was then triumphantly re-elected and "the Grand Old Man'' served until his death in 1891.

Mackenzie King, the longest-serving prime minister, was opposition leader in 1931-32, when what was called the Beauharnois Scandal erupted in Quebec and thrust the Liberal party into what King called "the valley of humiliation.''

Three years later, King led the party out of the valley to a majority government and won two more elections.

I please explain how come he was willing to fight for a Canada ruled by the likes of Mackenzie-King but has a problem with Martin?

[PocketRocket]

Is canada in worst shape now ?

No way. Just this morning I saw Canada out there jogging, and again later doing push-ups

More seriously, I think the nail was hit squarely on the head when it was pointed out by SPAR that our good Mr. Twiss did not specify exactly what his major complaints are.

Let's face it, there have been SO MANY changes over the past 50 years, that to someone who saw Canada then, and today, without actually having lived through the changes, well, they probably wouldn't recognize the country.

Mt Twiss did, however, briefly allude to today's politicians being more sleazy than those of his day. Well, I'll take that one with a grain of salt, too. Here's why; the

difference is that today's media is so much more inclusive. Parliament hill is under a microscope. Hell, the whole world is.

Very little transpires today without almost immediate media coverage.

Svend steals a wristwatch??? We all know about it within hours.

Bill gets a blowjob??? Details at eleven.

Back in the 40's there were no home computers, no TV's, few radios, and all the news announcers all had that brassy voice, and were content to read on the air whatever was handed to them.

Investigative journalism had yet to be invented.

I would imagine that anyone who has the personality type to be a politician would have the same inherently greedy characteristics, then, just as now.

The difference is that for reasons outlined above, the general public would probably not be aware of any corruption in high places.

our nations future.

Cold, followed by summer.

[Army Guy]

I think he is suffering from selective memory syndrome. If anything, Canadians are much less tolerant of bad behavoir by politicians:

Yes i see that now, just how many scandals did the liberal goverment have under comrad crietien. and why did they win a 3rd term.

Mt Twiss did, however, briefly allude to today's politicians being more sleazy than those of his day. Well, I'll take that one with a grain of salt, too. Here's why; the

difference is that today's media is so much more inclusive. Parliament hill is under a microscope. Hell, the whole world is.

Very little transpires today without almost immediate media coverage.

Svend steals a wristwatch??? We all know about it within hours.

Bill gets a blowjob??? Details at eleven

If this was true then it does not back Spar's remarks but rather Mr. Twiss remarks as the Canadian people a far more tolerant of our goverments misdeeds as they are aware of them daily. .

[sharkman]

Some want to discount the war vet's remarks as an old fuddy duddy who probably doesn't like gay marriage. Stick the homofobe label on him and set him out to pasture.

One thing though, I'm just curious. How many of you are over 80? Can you remember a young Canada that became a country after proving herself in the first world war? What kind of people were there back then. Do we really know, except to make shallow remarks about has beens?

I've heard these Canadians were quite well respected the world over. They more than carried their weight during the awful WW years. When the Germans started using mustard gas to kill the allies in WW I, the canadian troops pissed in their hankerchiefs, tied the wet hankerchief around their face to protect from the gas and kept fighting. What kind of person does that? Some shallow know it all that thinks in terms of left wing/right wing who wouldn't join the army unless a government they approved of was in power? Or maybe someone who says that they may kill me today but not before I defend this patch of mud with my blood.

In WWI, our population was eight million and the army we sent over was over 619,000. And they volunteered, they weren't drafted. http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?s...canada/Canada19

In WWII we sent over 1 million soldiers while our population was 11 million. The rest of the population ate little and worked hard to support the war effort with daily sacrifice that I think most of us in Canada today would find unbearable. At the time we had the 3rd largest navy and the 4th largest air force. http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?s...anada2/epilogue Our military forces today are but a fraction of that while our population is over 29 million. We don't understand what it means to go to war.

[Black Dog]

In 1968, Canada began to change, and those changes have continued until now, when the Canada of today only remotely resembles the Canada of the first half of the last century. The changes are far too many for me to recount in this letter. It is sufficient to say that a country is reflective of its citizens. And polls indicate that the Liberals, despite a record of sleaze, waste and dishonesty, are in the lead in voter preference. What does that say about Canadians?

They don't like the alternatives. It's the old "better the devil you know..." routine.

I've heard these Canadians were quite well respected the world over. They more than carried their weight during the awful WW years. When the Germans started using mustard gas to kill the allies in WW I, the canadian troops pissed in their hankerchiefs, tied the wet hankerchief around their face to protect from the gas and kept fighting. What kind of person does that? Some shallow know it all that thinks in terms of left wing/right wing who wouldn't join the army unless a government they approved of was in power? Or maybe someone who says that they may kill me today but not before I defend this patch of mud with my blood..

Everyone pissed on their hankies. Even the Hun. I think it had more to do with not wanting one' insides seared by poison gas than some noble sense of sacrifice.

We don't understand what it means to go to war.

And this is a bad thing?

[tml12]

BD,

You wrote, in response to 1968 changes:

"They don't like the alternatives. It's the old "better the devil you know..." routine."

When the alternative is extreme diplomacy and appeasement and decimation of the armed forces, I really don't think a 90-year old veteran is going to have trouble telling you what he prefers. I mean, imagine if Trudeau, not Churchill, was PM of England.

[Leafless]

Vets opnion is an opinion derived from a time when there were no benefits and every one had to work for a living and mostly every one loyal to our system of government for if you did not contribute to the system and appreciate the country for what it is you were not considered a true Canadian.

This is hard for some Canadians to understand that self worth comes from yourself and not a governments silver spoon loaded with tax payers money especially from the Trudeau era making everyone equal.

But all this accomplished was to forcefully remove the self worth from some Canadians and giving that self worth in the form of cold cash to individuals unworthy of the sweat and hard labour off of someone elses back to actually work against this country and to actually create groups more worthy than other Canadians.

I would not fight for this country either.

[sharkman]

And this is a bad thing?

In Canada today we don't realize that we are the envy of the world, living in the lap of luxury and having freedoms that many don't even know to dream of. We have all of these blessings, but we don't understand the sacrifice previous Canadians made to get us here as they volunteered to be shot at, gassed, starved or tortured. That puts us in danger of affecting Canada for the worse, becoming less than the country it was. So I think it's a bad thing to not understand the sacrifice that war entails, it may doom us to repeat past mistakes.

[fellowtraveller]

I suspect he is a man of his generation who is not willing to accept certain social changes such as acceptance of gay relationships. If that is the case then his opinions are about as significant as a vetran of the US civil war that laments that society accepts that black ands whites should marry.

shame on you for stating this

please explain how come he was willing to fight for a Canada ruled by the likes of Mackenzie-King but has a problem with Martin?

Why do you imply that he was fighting for either?

[Riverwind]

I think he is suffering from selective memory syndrome. If anything, Canadians are much less tolerant of bad behavoir by politicians:

Yes i see that now, just how many scandals did the liberal goverment have under comrad crietien. and why did they win a 3rd term.

How many scandals was MacKenzie-King involved in? He won three terms as well.

please explain how come he was willing to fight for a Canada ruled by the likes of Mackenzie-King but has a problem with Martin?

Why do you imply that he was fighting for either?

He quite clearly stated that their was something wrong with Canada today because Canadians elect parties which he claims have 'a record of sleaze, waste and dishonesty' and that he questions whether he would fight for the country today. Yet he seems to have forgetten that the same kinds of things happened in the 30s and 40s. His memory is selective and coloured by his political predispositions. There are many problems in Canadian society today but there where many equally serious problems with Canadian society in the 40s that no longer exist today - yet the vet chooses to ignore this in his rant.

[PocketRocket]

Aww, c'mon people, give the poor guy a break.

He's 90 years old. He was fighting for Canada before most, if not all, of us were born.

He feels he's got some legitimate beefs.

IMHO, he has definitely EARNED the right to voice them in public, moreso than any of us have.

It's a different world, and a different Canada.

For a 90 year old who has watched all the changes over the years, that can all be pretty scary.

Especially having to sit beside some mohawk-wearing kid on the bus.

[mcqueen625]

I read somewhere that in year's past being a politician was not a career choice. People who served normally left their jobs for a few years to devote those few years to public life, and then they simply returned to their careers. The suggestion in the article was that there was always new blood coming in and old blood going out. Maybe there is some merit to limiting the number of terms in office before one has to step aside. Today we have kids going to university, and graduating with a Political Science Degree, but absolutely no life or work experiences to guide their lives. That to me is akin to having a doctor do major surgery on me without having any clinical knowledge or experience other than what he/she learned out of a textbook. Yet we elect to office people who have no practical life experiences in order to guide their decisions.

We have a Tory MLA in NB who according to his own government Bio has virtually no real job experience except as a financial planner for about a year or so after graduation from University. He blindly seems to play follow the leader and tries to avoid public questioning without scripted responses. Since he is the only Tory left in this certain area of the province and speculation is that he will be defeated next election if the dogcatcher runs in opposition to him.

This is my point, I think we need to have people come into politics, attempt do do what it is they have set out to do, in at most 6 - 8 years then go back to their normal professions or jobs. As the article I read suggests, career politicians breeds both contempt and arrogance towards the electorate, but it also breeds corruption.

[Riverwind]

He feels he's got some legitimate beefs.

And others have some legimate reasons why his beefs are short sighted and/or unfair.

IMHO, he has definitely EARNED the right to voice them in public, moreso than any of us have.

Most certainly - but freedom to express his opinion does not mean that others may not express differing opinions.

It's a different world, and a different Canada. For a 90 year old who has watched all the changes over the years, that can all be pretty scary.

Most definately. If I was talking to him directly I would not responded the way I did here. I was responding to another poster who held his opinion up as a some profound analysis of what is wrong in Canada.

[August1991]

Some want to discount the war vet's remarks as an old fuddy duddy who probably doesn't like gay marriage.  Stick the homofobe label on him and set him out to pasture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sparhawk too made a good point. In the 1940s, gays hid themselves in a variety of ways. But Sharkman is right to say that "label, ignore" is just as callous.

In the past, people were poorer and more ignorant. (Watch or read The Cider House Rules to understand the consequences of the appalling ignorance of the 1940s.)

And so I too thought this old man's rant was about Trudeau, the metric system and women drivers.

But I think he has a point.

One thing though, I'm just curious. How many of you are over 80? Can you remember a young Canada that became a country after proving herself in the first world war? What kind of people were there back then. Do we really know, except to make shallow remarks about has beens?

Somebody wrote a piece (forget the name) about how baby-boomers are uncomfortable because fundamentally, they know that they do not have the same courage as their parents. (Bush Snr flew combat planes against the Japanese; Bush Jnr flew combat planes off the coast of Texas.)

More broadly, Canada is not the same as it was 65 years ago and somehow, the change is for the worse.

If I pick on Trudeau, he was a Quebec product of the Second World War and its aftermath. He believed in the perfectibility of man and the role of the State to make men better. Since 1968, the federal government has been involved in trying to make us better people.

We don't understand what it means to go to war.

And this is a bad thing?

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. No peaceful minority can go unmolested unless it ensures its safety.

[fellowtraveller]

please explain how come he was willing to fight for a Canada ruled by the likes of Mackenzie-King but has a problem with Martin?

Why do you imply that he was fighting for either?

He quite clearly stated that their was something wrong with Canada today because Canadians elect parties which he claims have 'a record of sleaze, waste and dishonesty' and that he questions whether he would fight for the country today. Yet he seems to have forgetten that the same kinds of things happened in the 30s and 40s. His memory is selective and coloured by his political predispositions. There are many problems in Canadian society today but there where many equally serious problems with Canadian society in the 40s that no longer exist today - yet the vet chooses to ignore this in his rant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evasive rubbish. The implication that he was fighting for King is yours alone, and the introduction of Martin is another fantasy. You don't like the message so you attack the messenger, in this case an old man with some spunk. Pathetic.

Worse than pathetic is your snide and utterly baseless comments about his purported views about homosexuality, which you have plucked whole from an orifice which is as disconnected from reality as your brain. I noticed you avoided that one completely, shows you are at least marginally aware.

[Riverwind]

Evasive rubbish.  The implication that he was fighting for King is yours alone, and the introduction of Martin is another fantasy.

Why don't you read what I actually wrote: I said:

"please explain how come he was willing to fight for a Canada ruled by the likes of Mackenzie-King".

That text clearly indicates that I believed he was fighting for Canada - not King. He said in his letter that the reason he would not fight for Canada today was because Canadians vote for the Liberals. In other words, it was the vet who brought leadership into the question. If the country is not worth fighting for today because Canadians elect leaders like Martin then the vet should answer the question why was the country worth fighting for when Canadians elected scoundrels like Mackenzie-King?

Worse than pathetic is your snide and utterly baseless  comments about his purported views about homosexuality

You seem to have some difficulty reading the English language. Again what I said was:

Since he does not enumerate the 'changes' that bother him it is hard to comment further, however, I suspect he is a man of his generation who is not willing to accept certain social changes such as acceptance of gay relationships. If that is the case...

In other words, I stated clearly that I knew I was speculating and used wording to suggest that my speculation could be wrong. After reviewing the letter, I do agree that it is likely that he was complaining mainly about the fact that Conservatives can't get elected but trying to justify his disappointment at the lack of electoral success for the Conservatives by hurling all sorts of insults at Canadians and Canada.

[Guest eureka]

The despair of most people of his generation comes from a quite different root. It is the Conservative social view of Canada that is anathema to them. They fought for the establishment of a civil society and returned to found one. The anger of the elderly is more focused on the decline in that under both Conservatives and Liberals.

It is the social and political inequality that has crept into our world that offends them: the "Balkanization" of a country that they fought to preserve.

Not to make the discussion about Queec, but I knew many veterans who would willingly have taken up arms there to stop the rot that was destroying all that they did fight for.

This gentleman's rant is amusing and no more than a political view in heart tugging terminology. He obviously still retains his faculties to be able to fashion such a baseless polemic.

[sharkman]

What I find interesting is how homogeneous the attitudes of that generation are toward today's Canada in comparison to the one they fought for. I have a respect for old people, I have gotten to know many, and my parents are not that far removed from that generation. I know a little about how they conduct themselves in life. They are mentally tough people who hold themselves to a high code (although there are exceptions). I once roomed and boarded in the home of a lady of that generation. She had a difficult life, as most of them did. She's gone through stuff that would get the better of most of us today I fear. But she's proud of it. It's what made her strong. We today have no such experiences to refine our qualities. We are raised by the TV and mother Canada.

What I don't understand is how the old are treated. The attitudes of many towards old people in general are just as homogeneous. To immediately discount his comments as a conservative rant and homophobic just because they don't jive with what's commonly accepted today shows an intolerance that is worse than anything expressed by the veteran.

[fellowtraveller]

it is hard to comment further, however, I suspect he is a man of his generation who is not willing to accept certain social changes such as acceptance of gay relationships. If that is the case...

After you say it is hard to comment further, you go on to comment further and slander this old gentleman simply because you suspect he may not vote for the same people you do.

Your suspicions have dick-all to do with anything except your fantasies. Nothing "is the case", you've just made it up, repeated your stupid comments and tried to wiggle out of something you should apologize for.

Actually, don't bother, your comments diminish you, not the subject.

[PocketRocket]

Very little transpires today without almost immediate media coverage.

Svend steals a wristwatch??? We all know about it within hours.

Bill gets a blowjob??? Details at eleven

If this was true then it does not back Spar's remarks but rather Mr. Twiss remarks as the Canadian people a far more tolerant of our goverments misdeeds as they are aware of them daily. .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

North Americans in general NEED to be more tolerant.

Considering how much crap we hear about each and every day on the news, we HAVE to be, or we'd all go bloody bananas.

Every once in a while, I'll sit and watch, REALLY watch the news.

I'll take every story personally, like it's happening to me, or a close friend or family member.

It doesn't take long before I have to walk away from the set.

Try it some time. You'll realize exactly why we've all become inured to all the crap.

It's simple self-preservation.