My question is, what will republicans say if Obama wins? "That's it! I'm moving to North Korea!" I can't think of any industrialized countries that are more right-leaning than the US...
He won't, but let's say Obama vows: "We'll be out of Iraq in a week!" ... Canada never went into Iraq.
He won't, but let's say Obama vows: "We'll have universal health care for every American!" ... Canada already has that.
He won't, but let's say Obama vows: "I am outlawing the death penalty!" ... Canada already has no death penalty.
He won't, but let's say Obama vows: "To preserve democracy, all of our future elections will be decided with pencils and paper ballots." ... Canada already does that.
He won't, but let's say Obama vows: "I believe in equal rights, so gay people must have the right to get married." ... Canada is already cool with gay marriage.
No Canadian political needs to weasel around with abortion, because in Canada, it's legal. End of discussion.
Obama says he might have to invade Iran. It's obvious Canada will not be a part of that.
So .......... what is it we would be moving back for?
:) Glad to give you a reason to pimp that post, actually. I'm still a little shocked (and mortified at my fellow citizens) that you've heard that reaction so much.
(Note: this comment to be updated with the phrase "our fellow citizens" ASAP.)
First of all, we're way ahead of you on the U-Haul thing: Steph and I snuck down last week and pre-emptively slashed the U-Haul tires, just to make sure you couldn't leave, 'cuz we want you here! (we are of course delighted that our pre-emptive safeguard proves unnecessary, we didn't really doubt it...).
No Canadian political needs to weasel around with abortion, because in Canada, it's legal. End of discussion. Actually, more like continuation of previous discussion: as L-girl has pointed out in a recent post, the legal right is not a real right in a number of provinces and territories, due to lack of (affordable) access and non-application of the Canada Health Act. But at least we have a legal framework to work on that.
Obama says he might have to invade Iran. It's obvious Canada will not be a part of that. I'll excuse your pollyanish new-Canadian optimism about this: rather sweet, really. In fact, Commander Stevie Harper in opposition was raring to go with Baby Bush into Iraq, and I am sure that if the Conservatives got a majority (heaven forfend!) they would be ready to follow into Iran too. And given the way they bullied the last minority Parliament about extending the Afghanistan occupation mission with a bogus "bipartisan" motion (hello, can we count to four parties anyone?), how many (scared, leaderless and generally principle-less) Liberal MPs would have to defect to get a "mandate" for more misguided military misadventures from the current House?
I am not very comforted by slow-learner Harper's admission that the Iraq invasion was a mistake -- this only would help inform future decisions for politicians who don't suffer from the acute historical amnesia the Cons cultivate.
Then where will I spend my Canadian Tire money?? Easy: send it to the WR support campaign (restrictions against mailing cash don't apply to fake store money, however valuable).
OMG -- How can people still believe that Obama will snap his fingers and fix all the problems of the United States such that Canada is no longer attractive.
Heaven forbid you may be in Canada for reasons other than Bush... but that would require thinking on a higher level.
I'll excuse your pollyanish new-Canadian optimism about this: rather sweet, really.
This is a bit gratuitous -- and an odd description of me, considering my comments on this blog. Perhaps I am not commenting often enough.
Commander Stevie Harper in opposition was raring to go with Baby Bush into Iraq, and I am sure that if the Conservatives got a majority (heaven forfend!) they would be ready to follow into Iran too.
I'll stand by my statement. There is no way in hell Harper will follow McCain or Obama into Iran. (And since Iran is likely to be air-bombed and not attacked with ground troops -- what troops? -- the US will likely not need much outside help.)
Harper does not have a majority, and he won't be getting one either, so that point is moot. Even so, I'm skeptical that Harper would join in an attack on Iran even with a majority.
This is a bit gratuitous An attempt at irony (follows the U-Haul "tire-slashing" remark, hint hint). I know from your posts that "sweet" is an obvious misnomer. My apologies.
But seriously, nobody should underestimate what a Harper majority would look like, if he no longer needed to keep his homophobic, anti-choice, pro-war, anti-public-healthcare (need I go on?) caucus members more-or-less in line and (largely) out of the media. A lot of your "don't need to worry about in Canada" items would become "time to start worrying about" items in a hurry.
And needed or not, lots of those Cons would line up to back any US invasion or bombing, just as the rest of redundant cheerleaders in coalition-of-the-bullied-and-bought did (think Iceland). The real question is, could they bring enough semi-closeted hawkish Liberals onside to do it in the current minority Parliament? An open question, quite honestly (because the Liberal party really has no principles at all on minor issues like war -- they can literally go either way, or both at the same time).
Don't get me wrong -- I very much appreciate your list of reasons to stay here. I also know how fragile these (previously "core") Canadian values have become over recent decades of Republicanism-north. Luckily, paper ballot elections look like they are with us for a while yet -- thanks for pointing out that important difference.
If there's a word I would choose that least describes Allan, it's pollyanna.
Although I don't underestimate what a Harper majority might do - and hope never to find out - I don't see Canada following the US into Iran, given public sentiment about the invasion of Iraq.
As usual, I find some of the anti-Harper rhetoric a bit overblown.
Yesterday I didn't have health insurance. Today, on Nov.4, the day Obama is elected President, I don't have health insurance. Tomorrow, the day after Obama is elected President, I still won't have health insurance. NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR ME.
Obama wants and employer-based health insurance plan run by profit-making insurance companies.
When the US has a Canadian-style, fully publicly funded single payer health care system, let me know--I'll go back right way.
For the record folks, I am (of course!) agnostic about Allan's sweetness or lack thereof (recognising of course his self-portrayal in posts as decidedly un-sweet): again, no offense intended. Similarly, "pollyannish" (OK, that might have been gratuitous, sorry) was describing the optimism, not the person (obviously, since I don't know him).
But allow me stand by the point (check my post) that the optimism expressed was (genuinely!) sweet -- a reminder of some of the hope we can have in this country (whereas I tend to be more often aghast at how far we have slid towards the DC axis). I am truly appreciative (here as elsewhere) of the fresh vision that relative new-comers' eyes bring to this country, just as I am gravely concerned about where we are headed.
As usual, I find some of the anti-Harper rhetoric a bit overblown. Which points, specifically? All of the issues I have mentioned (and many more) are well-documented, for example in your own impressive pre-election list. You only have to meet a few of his caucus stalwarts to realize how truly Republican their vision is.
I don't see Canada following the US into Iran, given public sentiment about the invasion of Iraq. Can you point me to other major policies where Harper has made decisions based on public sentiment rather than Conservative ideology? Not deporting war resisters, perhaps? Am I missing something??
Would Harper back aggression against Iran? A good test-case of Harper's post-Iraq judgement on foreign policy matters: when Israel invaded Lebanon, his minority government abandoned decades of Canadian diplomatic "even-handedness" on the Middle East to jump in line behind the Bush hawks, calling the terror-bombing of civilians "measured and proportionate".
And now the thought experiment: If Washington had then decided to jump in with bombers and more to back up Israel (as many of the Bush crowd would have liked, constrained only perhaps by being militarily over-extended elsewhere) and take the aggression to Syria and Iran (under the hypocritical spin of stopping nuclear proliferation), are you really certain that Commander Steve would have suddenly come to his senses and abandoned the Bush war camp? I am not so sure -- but I am sure that any future lead-up to bombing Teheran will include similar hype and it right now would fall on similarly-inclined prime-ministerial ears in Ottawa.
And in such a scenario, the cry of "defend poor Israel" could probably get Harper enough Liberal votes to carry the House and the Senate (assuming he bothered to go through the democratic niceties -- he could then safely wait half a decade or so to maybe admit it was a mistake in an electoral debate). Would public opinion be against it? More than likely. Would that stop Harper from jumping when called? Far from certain... which is scary, for me.
Note that I am not talking about substantive military support for the U.S. (Canada's armed forces are increasingly safely irrelevant there) but rather the automatic uncritical political backing of Washington's bully tactics which have become a hall-mark of Harper's foreign policy.
Thank you (really, sincerely!) for your optimism about Canada, it helps with what a colleague calls the daily struggle for re-illusionment. My lame joke about the U-Haul tires was meant to express some of the gratitude I feel for your perspectives here, so I'll just come out and say it directly: I'm real glad you're staying, though of course I'd read enough to realise it was not really a question.
When do you air on the fake news show you are being so coy about?
... and the impressions of the US underblown. Of that at least I think I may be innocent.
P.S. I'd like to think we can disagree with each other here without having to call the other person names. Please allow me to apologise again (and to apologise to other readers for subjecting them to so many apologies). My intention was to comment on a sentiment, not insult a person. I am very sorry to have offended anyone. Rest assured that I have learned my lesson, and will contritely be very cautious about calling anyone or anyone's anything "sweet" in the future.
I've also been asked whether I'd 'move back if we got rid of Bush'. Well, the little creep did not get to pull off his military coup--yet--so we will get rid of him no matter who wins the election. As for moving back...I have equal pay for equal work here,which I did NOT have there, so I will stay here as long as I can. The duration, if you will. It's SANE here. Good luck with the new POTUS.
David, I wasn't referring specifically to any points you raised about Harper, which I admit I only had time to skim (so far, I'll get back to it). I meant the anti-Harper rhetoric in general.
My thoughts on that are well documented in this blog. I'm really not interested in going over it point by point, at least not tonight.
When do you air on the fake news show you are being so coy about?
Possibly never, they're a long way away from filming. They're just doing preliminary research to see if there's a story there. They may find there is no story, and if they do, I may or may not fit into it. We shall see!
"When the US has a Canadian-style, fully publicly funded single payer health care system, let me know--I'll go back right way."
Not me! For me it's more about family recognition and a generally different sensibility. Health care is critically important, but consider this...
"The following products and services are not insured by either New Brunswick Medicare or by the province's hospital services:
abortion (unless . . . medically required) acupuncture advice or prescription renewal by telephone ambulance services blood taken in a doctor's office complete medical exams for annual check-up drugs and medicines meds for the patient to take home from hospital prosthetic devices or appliances removal of minor skin lesions services provided by chiropractors, naturopaths, optometrists, orthodontists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychologists... surgical supplies
Note: I left out a lot of things like cosmetic breast enlargement and circumcision and a variety of service providers.
As I've said elsewhere, I love that some degree of health care is available to everyone. Nobody with NB Medicare will be duct taping their kid's broken arm. But, health care, such as it is, certainly not at the top of my list for why I plan to stay.
I meant the anti-Harper rhetoric in general. OK, can you (or anyone) point me at overblown anti-Harper rhetoric, anywhere? My view is that most public media and published opinion have been if anything too conciliatory with him ("look, he put more women in his cabinet" -- which doesn't change what his government's policies actually do to women). But maybe I'm not reading the right places.
When the US has a Canadian-style, fully publicly funded single payer health care system, let me know--I'll go back right way.
Really? I sure wouldn't.
MSEH, just for the record, most of those services are not covered by any provincial health plan, to my knowledge.
Not covering abortion is a disgrace, obviously.
But of what you listed, these are not covered in Ontario:
advice or prescription renewal by telephone ambulance services blood taken in a doctor's office drugs and medicines meds for the patient to take home from hospital prosthetic devices or appliances removal of minor skin lesions services provided by chiropractors, naturopaths, optometrists, orthodontists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, podiatrists,
We have coverage for a limited amount of all of those from our supplemental health plans, through Allan's employer (and would be through mine if I worked more hours).
It does sound like Ontario has much better coverage than NB, from what you've said, but none of those things are included.
Yeah, I didn't mean that NB stood out that badly; but it's the info I have, as an example. And it's where Shaun will be living. Thanks for the clarification!
"MSEH, does your family have supplemental coverage? And if you do, is it good? "
Not yet. We're in the position of me still being employed in the US, P being in the US as a student until next month, etc. I've still got coverage through my employer, because I can. I also have a type of supplemental for 7YO and P, but a very limited coverage that is available through the schools. Once we're all here and settled, and we know what's happening with P's employment, we'll be able to figure out the options. Fortunately if she got on at the university, even part-time, she'd be eligible to purchase supplemental coverage.
"The following products and services are not insured by either New Brunswick Medicare or by the province's hospital services: [and following]
MSEH: I hear you M, but this is what's not covered by my TOTAL LACK OF HEALTH CARE right now:
no doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals of any kind
no hospitals or clinics of any kind
no ambulance or emergency room services
no prescriptions of any kind
I can't even get my thyroid prescription re-authorized because that would require a doctor's appointment, and since I don't have insurance to cover a doctor's appointment, I can't get my pills--which I would DIE WITHOUT.
Do you get it? Do you get the difference between "basic health care without some important services" (Canada) and NO HEALTH CARE AT ALL?
I apologize for being vehement about this issue, but these are the actual circumstances I am facing right now.
In a nutshell: "Harper is Bush Jr." I quite agree that this position is shockingly uninformed-- confusing the bully with the guy holding his coat (to borrow Linda McQuaig's apt description). I must have missed it because WMTC is the only blog I read (except for some of the links L-girl sends us to), and I can't recall hearing this particular false equation amongst the off-line activists or progressives I frequent.
Shaun, no need to apologize. Since she's from the US, I'm sure MSEH gets it quite easily. But many Canadians don't.
There was actually a comment here recently from a Canadian wondering if what he pays in taxes would equal to what he'd spend in health care in the US.
That's insane, of course.
A, you can be denied coverage in the US. Not denied coverage for a procedure. Denied coverage, period.
B, if you lose your job, you lose your coverage.
C, if you're self-employed or freelance, you have to figure out how to get coverage, or not have any.
D, if you're uninsured and have to pay out of pocket, forget taxes, your whole salary won't cover your care if you have the bad luck to get really sick (cancer, diabetes, etc.).
And E, you would have to look at the difference in taxes, because you'd pay taxes in the US, too. I pay the same taxes here as I did in New York State/City. But even if I came from a state with low taxes, would that difference cover my health care costs? An emphatic no.
I quite agree that this position is shockingly uninformed-- confusing the bully with the guy holding his coat (to borrow Linda McQuaig's apt description). I must have missed it because WMTC is the only blog I read (except for some of the links L-girl sends us to), and I can't recall hearing this particular false equation amongst the off-line activists or progressives I frequent.
I'm glad Allan was able to get the shorthand in there.
The 2nd part is "Harper is turning Canada into Bush's US".
I hear it and read it all over the blogosphere and in person from activists.
You're quite right, David - holding the bully's coat is bad enough, but there's still a difference between the bully and his sycophant. (I love that phrase, and loved the book. I blogged about it a while back.)
"Do you get it? Do you get the difference between "basic health care without some important services" (Canada) and NO HEALTH CARE AT ALL?"
Of course I "get it." You know better, or I thought you did.
My point was simply to say that *I* would not return to the US solely on the basis of it achieving universal health care and that there *are* limits to Canadian universal health care.
I fully understand the vehemence/anger, but, seriously, to suggest that I don't understand the difference - that's insulting.
And thanks, L-girl, for suggesting that I might actually have a brain. -)
And thanks, L-girl, for suggesting that I might actually have a brain.
As if there is any doubt?!
I apologize for being vehement about this issue
Shaun, when I said "no need to apologize," I should have been more specific. There's no need to apologize for vehemence. But there's no need to direct your agitation against anyone on this blog. We're all on the same page here.
50 comments and no one has asked you when the interview(s) will air? This I have to see. Please do keep us posted.
It was really odd, reading a celebratory thread over at another site and someone says "Now I don't have to move to Canada". Reading that was kind of annoying, insulting somehow. Yes, so glad you were spared a fate worse than death, there, buddy.
50 comments and no one has asked you when the interview(s) will air? This I have to see. Please do keep us posted.
Someone did ask - somewhere. Must be another thread.
They haven't filmed anything yet, and may not. It was just some preliminary phone interviews, to see if there might be a story in it.
It was really odd, reading a celebratory thread over at another site and someone says "Now I don't have to move to Canada". Reading that was kind of annoying, insulting somehow. Yes, so glad you were spared a fate worse than death, there, buddy.
Ick. People like that generally have no intentions of moving anywhere. And "now I don't have to move to Canada" probably means, now I can continue living my life and I won't hate the US as much as I might have. But still: ick. It is offensive.
Of course Harper and his party are a catastrophe and it's for a reason they have been so close with the Republicans because they don't mind much because they are near to their low level.
In fact, Commander Stevie Harper in opposition was raring to go with Baby Bush into Iraq, and I am sure that if the Conservatives got a majority (heaven forfend!) they would be ready to follow into Iran too. And given the way they bullied the last minority Parliament about extending the Afghanistan occupation mission with a bogus "bipartisan" motion (hello, can we count to four parties anyone?), how many (scared, leaderless and generally principle-less) Liberal MPs would have to defect to get a "mandate" for more misguided military misadventures from the current House?
I am not very comforted by slow-learner Harper's admission that the Iraq invasion was a mistake -- this only would help inform future decisions for politicians who don't suffer from the acute historical amnesia the Cons cultivate.
Wow, cool! I enjoy slow-learner Harper and baby Bush and commander Stevie Harper in opposition, David. It's so important not to have them as a majority government where they could even cause way more trouble! Hope they will fall soon...excited about how it will go tomorrow with the budget!!! It would be way easier if the Liberal Party were more intent and found it more easy to stand up to him on principle, I know!!!
Harper does not have a majority, and he won't be getting one either, so that point is moot.
Thanks, that's at least reassuring. He needs to be prevented and I'm very hopeful on that!!! I would never want to find out what amount of shit he could do then either, Laura!
redundant cheerleaders in coalition-of-the-bullied-and-bought did
Bullies, o yes, I know. I liked it when that lady French Secretary of Defense told Bush and his guys a few things in the most frank and tough and outspoken way!!! It made me laugh because I imagined people quoting her words spoken at that occasion against other bullies!
recent decades of Republicanism-north. Luckily, paper ballot elections look like they are with us for a while yet -- thanks for pointing out that important difference.
Yeah, the Harper Conservatives are really bad enough and the expression Republicanism North is great, David, thanks so much but at least I'm glad they cannot cause the same amount their colleagues and siblings in bad spirit have been able to cause south of the border for decades on end!!!
You're quite right, David - holding the bully's coat is bad enough, but there's still a difference between the bully and his sycophant.
Yeah, Bush was the main offender and main bully and Harper was his political accomplice. Of course, Bush and the Republicans and the grievances in the US are worse, Harper and his Conservatives are still bad enough!!!
53 comments:
What was your answer?
M@ wins the prize!
I was wondering who would be the first to ask, and whether the question would be serious or sarcastic.
hope the answer is no and that you stay cause it sure has been great having you here.
That is so sweet. Thank you, Andrea.
Is there any doubt? I love Canada. I'm so happy to be here. It's where I belong.
I didn't come here for a vacation to ride something out. I'm putting down roots, eh!
So I should return the U-Haul?
Woo hoo! Got in early, there.
My question is, what will republicans say if Obama wins? "That's it! I'm moving to North Korea!" I can't think of any industrialized countries that are more right-leaning than the US...
My question is, what will republicans say if Obama wins? "That's it! I'm moving to North Korea!"
The Daily Show guy said the exact same thing. :)
He won't, but let's say Obama vows: "We'll be out of Iraq in a week!" ... Canada never went into Iraq.
He won't, but let's say Obama vows: "We'll have universal health care for every American!" ... Canada already has that.
He won't, but let's say Obama vows: "I am outlawing the death penalty!" ... Canada already has no death penalty.
He won't, but let's say Obama vows: "To preserve democracy, all of our future elections will be decided with pencils and paper ballots." ... Canada already does that.
He won't, but let's say Obama vows: "I believe in equal rights, so gay people must have the right to get married." ... Canada is already cool with gay marriage.
No Canadian political needs to weasel around with abortion, because in Canada, it's legal. End of discussion.
Obama says he might have to invade Iran. It's obvious Canada will not be a part of that.
So .......... what is it we would be moving back for?
So I should return the U-Haul?
LOL. I literally LOL'd.
what is it we would be moving back for?
The shopping?
Wow, great post, Allan.
The shopping?
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to pimp an old post!
The shopping?
Alternative answer: Then where will I spend my Canadian Tire money???
Then where will I spend my Canadian Tire money??
:) Glad to give you a reason to pimp that post, actually. I'm still a little shocked (and mortified at my fellow citizens) that you've heard that reaction so much.
(Note: this comment to be updated with the phrase "our fellow citizens" ASAP.)
Btw, I also LOL'd at the U-Haul comment.
I'll do one!!! Me! Me! I have a great story to tell about Canada, too, and what REAL hope means.
Anyway, send 'em my way.
I hope the answer is Yes. Move here to Orange County.
My neighborhood is full of "Yes on Prop 8" signs. All that might have not mattered if Noah was still around :).
You might be interested to know that I voted No on 8.
First of all, we're way ahead of you on the U-Haul thing: Steph and I snuck down last week and pre-emptively slashed the U-Haul tires, just to make sure you couldn't leave, 'cuz we want you here! (we are of course delighted that our pre-emptive safeguard proves unnecessary, we didn't really doubt it...).
No Canadian political needs to weasel around with abortion, because in Canada, it's legal. End of discussion.
Actually, more like continuation of previous discussion: as L-girl has pointed out in a recent post, the legal right is not a real right in a number of provinces and territories, due to lack of (affordable) access and non-application of the Canada Health Act. But at least we have a legal framework to work on that.
Obama says he might have to invade Iran. It's obvious Canada will not be a part of that.
I'll excuse your pollyanish new-Canadian optimism about this: rather sweet, really. In fact, Commander Stevie Harper in opposition was raring to go with Baby Bush into Iraq, and I am sure that if the Conservatives got a majority (heaven forfend!) they would be ready to follow into Iran too. And given the way they bullied the last minority Parliament about extending the Afghanistan occupation mission with a bogus "bipartisan" motion (hello, can we count to four parties anyone?), how many (scared, leaderless and generally principle-less) Liberal MPs would have to defect to get a "mandate" for more misguided military misadventures from the current House?
I am not very comforted by slow-learner Harper's admission that the Iraq invasion was a mistake -- this only would help inform future decisions for politicians who don't suffer from the acute historical amnesia the Cons cultivate.
Then where will I spend my Canadian Tire money??
Easy: send it to the WR support campaign (restrictions against mailing cash don't apply to fake store money, however valuable).
OMG -- How can people still believe that Obama will snap his fingers and fix all the problems of the United States such that Canada is no longer attractive.
Heaven forbid you may be in Canada for reasons other than Bush... but that would require thinking on a higher level.
I'll excuse your pollyanish new-Canadian optimism about this: rather sweet, really.
This is a bit gratuitous -- and an odd description of me, considering my comments on this blog. Perhaps I am not commenting often enough.
Commander Stevie Harper in opposition was raring to go with Baby Bush into Iraq, and I am sure that if the Conservatives got a majority (heaven forfend!) they would be ready to follow into Iran too.
I'll stand by my statement. There is no way in hell Harper will follow McCain or Obama into Iran. (And since Iran is likely to be air-bombed and not attacked with ground troops -- what troops? -- the US will likely not need much outside help.)
Harper does not have a majority, and he won't be getting one either, so that point is moot. Even so, I'm skeptical that Harper would join in an attack on Iran even with a majority.
This is a bit gratuitous
An attempt at irony (follows the U-Haul "tire-slashing" remark, hint hint). I know from your posts that "sweet" is an obvious misnomer. My apologies.
But seriously, nobody should underestimate what a Harper majority would look like, if he no longer needed to keep his homophobic, anti-choice, pro-war, anti-public-healthcare (need I go on?) caucus members more-or-less in line and (largely) out of the media. A lot of your "don't need to worry about in Canada" items would become "time to start worrying about" items in a hurry.
And needed or not, lots of those Cons would line up to back any US invasion or bombing, just as the rest of redundant cheerleaders in coalition-of-the-bullied-and-bought did (think Iceland). The real question is, could they bring enough semi-closeted hawkish Liberals onside to do it in the current minority Parliament? An open question, quite honestly (because the Liberal party really has no principles at all on minor issues like war -- they can literally go either way, or both at the same time).
Don't get me wrong -- I very much appreciate your list of reasons to stay here. I also know how fragile these (previously "core") Canadian values have become over recent decades of Republicanism-north. Luckily, paper ballot elections look like they are with us for a while yet -- thanks for pointing out that important difference.
I *loved* these comments - esp the North Korea line (which I hadn't heard) and Allan's list!
I/P, I will do that!
(Note: this comment to be updated with the phrase "our fellow citizens" ASAP.)
YEAH BABY YEAH!! (Update on that coming soon.)
I hope the answer is Yes. Move here to Orange County.
Ha! Yeah, that's likely. [major eye roll]
You might be interested to know that I voted No on 8.
I am interested, David, and I'm proud to know you.
If there's a word I would choose that least describes Allan, it's pollyanna.
Although I don't underestimate what a Harper majority might do - and hope never to find out - I don't see Canada following the US into Iran, given public sentiment about the invasion of Iraq.
As usual, I find some of the anti-Harper rhetoric a bit overblown.
I *loved* these comments - esp the North Korea line (which I hadn't heard) and Allan's list!
:>)
Up for an interview? Let me know if you want someone to call, I'll give them your email address.
As usual, I find some of the anti-Harper rhetoric a bit overblown.
... and the impressions of the US underblown.
P.S. I'd like to think we can disagree with each other here without having to call the other person names.
Yesterday I didn't have health insurance. Today, on Nov.4, the day Obama is elected President, I don't have health insurance. Tomorrow, the day after Obama is elected President, I still won't have health insurance. NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR ME.
Obama wants and employer-based health insurance plan run by profit-making insurance companies.
When the US has a Canadian-style, fully publicly funded single payer health care system, let me know--I'll go back right way.
For the record folks, I am (of course!) agnostic about Allan's sweetness or lack thereof (recognising of course his self-portrayal in posts as decidedly un-sweet): again, no offense intended. Similarly, "pollyannish" (OK, that might have been gratuitous, sorry) was describing the optimism, not the person (obviously, since I don't know him).
But allow me stand by the point (check my post) that the optimism expressed was (genuinely!) sweet -- a reminder of some of the hope we can have in this country (whereas I tend to be more often aghast at how far we have slid towards the DC axis). I am truly appreciative (here as elsewhere) of the fresh vision that relative new-comers' eyes bring to this country, just as I am gravely concerned about where we are headed.
As usual, I find some of the anti-Harper rhetoric a bit overblown.
Which points, specifically? All of the issues I have mentioned (and many more) are well-documented, for example in your own impressive pre-election list. You only have to meet a few of his caucus stalwarts to realize how truly Republican their vision is.
I don't see Canada following the US into Iran, given public sentiment about the invasion of Iraq.
Can you point me to other major policies where Harper has made decisions based on public sentiment rather than Conservative ideology? Not deporting war resisters, perhaps? Am I missing something??
Would Harper back aggression against Iran? A good test-case of Harper's post-Iraq judgement on foreign policy matters: when Israel invaded Lebanon, his minority government abandoned decades of Canadian diplomatic "even-handedness" on the Middle East to jump in line behind the Bush hawks, calling the terror-bombing of civilians "measured and proportionate".
And now the thought experiment: If Washington had then decided to jump in with bombers and more to back up Israel (as many of the Bush crowd would have liked, constrained only perhaps by being militarily over-extended elsewhere) and take the aggression to Syria and Iran (under the hypocritical spin of stopping nuclear proliferation), are you really certain that Commander Steve would have suddenly come to his senses and abandoned the Bush war camp? I am not so sure -- but I am sure that any future lead-up to bombing Teheran will include similar hype and it right now would fall on similarly-inclined prime-ministerial ears in Ottawa.
And in such a scenario, the cry of "defend poor Israel" could probably get Harper enough Liberal votes to carry the House and the Senate (assuming he bothered to go through the democratic niceties -- he could then safely wait half a decade or so to maybe admit it was a mistake in an electoral debate). Would public opinion be against it? More than likely. Would that stop Harper from jumping when called? Far from certain... which is scary, for me.
Note that I am not talking about substantive military support for the U.S. (Canada's armed forces are increasingly safely irrelevant there) but rather the automatic uncritical political backing of Washington's bully tactics which have become a hall-mark of Harper's foreign policy.
Thank you (really, sincerely!) for your optimism about Canada, it helps with what a colleague calls the daily struggle for re-illusionment. My lame joke about the U-Haul tires was meant to express some of the gratitude I feel for your perspectives here, so I'll just come out and say it directly: I'm real glad you're staying, though of course I'd read enough to realise it was not really a question.
When do you air on the fake news show you are being so coy about?
... and the impressions of the US underblown.
Of that at least I think I may be innocent.
P.S. I'd like to think we can disagree with each other here without having to call the other person names.
Please allow me to apologise again (and to apologise to other readers for subjecting them to so many apologies). My intention was to comment on a sentiment, not insult a person. I am very sorry to have offended anyone. Rest assured that I have learned my lesson, and will contritely be very cautious about calling anyone or anyone's anything "sweet" in the future.
I've also been asked whether I'd 'move back if we got rid of Bush'. Well, the little creep did not get to pull off his military coup--yet--so we will get rid of him no matter who wins the election.
As for moving back...I have equal pay for equal work here,which I did NOT have there, so I will stay here as long as I can. The duration, if you will. It's SANE here.
Good luck with the new POTUS.
David, I wasn't referring specifically to any points you raised about Harper, which I admit I only had time to skim (so far, I'll get back to it). I meant the anti-Harper rhetoric in general.
My thoughts on that are well documented in this blog. I'm really not interested in going over it point by point, at least not tonight.
When do you air on the fake news show you are being so coy about?
Possibly never, they're a long way away from filming. They're just doing preliminary research to see if there's a story there. They may find there is no story, and if they do, I may or may not fit into it. We shall see!
"Up for an interview? Let me know if you want someone to call, I'll give them your email address."
Anytime, anytime.
And, thanks for the "game thread."
Thanks, David.
Don't worry about it. It's fine.
(I did not mind "sweet", by the way.)
Melissa, you're welcome, and I'll call him w/ your email address! Great.
"When the US has a Canadian-style, fully publicly funded single payer health care system, let me know--I'll go back right way."
Not me! For me it's more about family recognition and a generally different sensibility. Health care is critically important, but consider this...
"The following products and services are not insured by either New Brunswick Medicare or by the province's hospital services:
abortion (unless . . . medically required)
acupuncture
advice or prescription renewal by telephone
ambulance services
blood taken in a doctor's office
complete medical exams for annual check-up
drugs and medicines
meds for the patient to take home from hospital
prosthetic devices or appliances
removal of minor skin lesions
services provided by chiropractors, naturopaths, optometrists, orthodontists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychologists...
surgical supplies
Note: I left out a lot of things like cosmetic breast enlargement and circumcision and a variety of service providers.
As I've said elsewhere, I love that some degree of health care is available to everyone. Nobody with NB Medicare will be duct taping their kid's broken arm. But, health care, such as it is, certainly not at the top of my list for why I plan to stay.
I meant the anti-Harper rhetoric in general.
OK, can you (or anyone) point me at overblown anti-Harper rhetoric, anywhere? My view is that most public media and published opinion have been if anything too conciliatory with him ("look, he put more women in his cabinet" -- which doesn't change what his government's policies actually do to women). But maybe I'm not reading the right places.
When the US has a Canadian-style, fully publicly funded single payer health care system, let me know--I'll go back right way.
Really? I sure wouldn't.
MSEH, just for the record, most of those services are not covered by any provincial health plan, to my knowledge.
Not covering abortion is a disgrace, obviously.
But of what you listed, these are not covered in Ontario:
advice or prescription renewal by telephone
ambulance services
blood taken in a doctor's office
drugs and medicines
meds for the patient to take home from hospital
prosthetic devices or appliances
removal of minor skin lesions
services provided by chiropractors, naturopaths, optometrists, orthodontists, osteopaths, physiotherapists, podiatrists,
We have coverage for a limited amount of all of those from our supplemental health plans, through Allan's employer (and would be through mine if I worked more hours).
It does sound like Ontario has much better coverage than NB, from what you've said, but none of those things are included.
David, could you please give it a rest for now?
I've seen a lot of overblown anti-Harper rhetoric in the blogosphere. But I'm not going to go dig it up right now.
Can't we just disagree?
Yeah, I didn't mean that NB stood out that badly; but it's the info I have, as an example. And it's where Shaun will be living. Thanks for the clarification!
Also, I wasn't talking about mainstream sources. I was talking about within the progressive blogosphere and from progressive people.
MSEH, does your family have supplemental coverage? And if you do, is it good?
Ours is really good. They're super easy to deal with, and seem to really want to pay for services, completely the opposite of US insurance companies.
In a nutshell: "Harper is Bush Jr."
We read it in a ton of Canadian blogs (and in wmtc comments sometimes). Some Canadian bloggers STILL maintain Harper = Bush.
And that is WAY, WAY off. Those people have no idea what has been going on in the US.
"MSEH, does your family have supplemental coverage? And if you do, is it good? "
Not yet. We're in the position of me still being employed in the US, P being in the US as a student until next month, etc. I've still got coverage through my employer, because I can. I also have a type of supplemental for 7YO and P, but a very limited coverage that is available through the schools. Once we're all here and settled, and we know what's happening with P's employment, we'll be able to figure out the options. Fortunately if she got on at the university, even part-time, she'd be eligible to purchase supplemental coverage.
"The following products and services are not insured by either New Brunswick Medicare or by the province's hospital services: [and following]
MSEH: I hear you M, but this is what's not covered by my TOTAL LACK OF HEALTH CARE right now:
no doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals of any kind
no hospitals or clinics of any kind
no ambulance or emergency room services
no prescriptions of any kind
I can't even get my thyroid prescription re-authorized because that would require a doctor's appointment, and since I don't have insurance to cover a doctor's appointment, I can't get my pills--which I would DIE WITHOUT.
Do you get it? Do you get the difference between "basic health care without some important services" (Canada) and NO HEALTH CARE AT ALL?
I apologize for being vehement about this issue, but these are the actual circumstances I am facing right now.
In a nutshell: "Harper is Bush Jr."
I quite agree that this position is shockingly uninformed-- confusing the bully with the guy holding his coat (to borrow Linda McQuaig's apt description). I must have missed it because WMTC is the only blog I read (except for some of the links L-girl sends us to), and I can't recall hearing this particular false equation amongst the off-line activists or progressives I frequent.
Shaun, no need to apologize. Since she's from the US, I'm sure MSEH gets it quite easily. But many Canadians don't.
There was actually a comment here recently from a Canadian wondering if what he pays in taxes would equal to what he'd spend in health care in the US.
That's insane, of course.
A, you can be denied coverage in the US. Not denied coverage for a procedure. Denied coverage, period.
B, if you lose your job, you lose your coverage.
C, if you're self-employed or freelance, you have to figure out how to get coverage, or not have any.
D, if you're uninsured and have to pay out of pocket, forget taxes, your whole salary won't cover your care if you have the bad luck to get really sick (cancer, diabetes, etc.).
And E, you would have to look at the difference in taxes, because you'd pay taxes in the US, too. I pay the same taxes here as I did in New York State/City. But even if I came from a state with low taxes, would that difference cover my health care costs? An emphatic no.
In a nutshell: "Harper is Bush Jr."
I quite agree that this position is shockingly uninformed-- confusing the bully with the guy holding his coat (to borrow Linda McQuaig's apt description). I must have missed it because WMTC is the only blog I read (except for some of the links L-girl sends us to), and I can't recall hearing this particular false equation amongst the off-line activists or progressives I frequent.
I'm glad Allan was able to get the shorthand in there.
The 2nd part is "Harper is turning Canada into Bush's US".
I hear it and read it all over the blogosphere and in person from activists.
You're quite right, David - holding the bully's coat is bad enough, but there's still a difference between the bully and his sycophant. (I love that phrase, and loved the book. I blogged about it a while back.)
"Do you get it? Do you get the difference between "basic health care without some important services" (Canada) and NO HEALTH CARE AT ALL?"
Of course I "get it." You know better, or I thought you did.
My point was simply to say that *I* would not return to the US solely on the basis of it achieving universal health care and that there *are* limits to Canadian universal health care.
I fully understand the vehemence/anger, but, seriously, to suggest that I don't understand the difference - that's insulting.
And thanks, L-girl, for suggesting that I might actually have a brain. -)
And thanks, L-girl, for suggesting that I might actually have a brain.
As if there is any doubt?!
I apologize for being vehement about this issue
Shaun, when I said "no need to apologize," I should have been more specific. There's no need to apologize for vehemence. But there's no need to direct your agitation against anyone on this blog. We're all on the same page here.
I'm pissed beyond belief today (read my post) and I'd be happy to tell a lot of people just how much I LOVE Canada.
Since Nick's profile doesn't go anywhere, and many readers don't know him: Life Without Borders.
50 comments and no one has asked you when the interview(s) will air? This I have to see. Please do keep us posted.
It was really odd, reading a celebratory thread over at another site and someone says "Now I don't have to move to Canada". Reading that was kind of annoying, insulting somehow. Yes, so glad you were spared a fate worse than death, there, buddy.
50 comments and no one has asked you when the interview(s) will air? This I have to see. Please do keep us posted.
Someone did ask - somewhere. Must be another thread.
They haven't filmed anything yet, and may not. It was just some preliminary phone interviews, to see if there might be a story in it.
It was really odd, reading a celebratory thread over at another site and someone says "Now I don't have to move to Canada". Reading that was kind of annoying, insulting somehow. Yes, so glad you were spared a fate worse than death, there, buddy.
Ick. People like that generally have no intentions of moving anywhere. And "now I don't have to move to Canada" probably means, now I can continue living my life and I won't hate the US as much as I might have. But still: ick. It is offensive.
Of course Harper and his party are a catastrophe and it's for a reason they have been so close with the Republicans because they don't mind much because they are near to their low level.
In fact, Commander Stevie Harper in opposition was raring to go with Baby Bush into Iraq, and I am sure that if the Conservatives got a majority (heaven forfend!) they would be ready to follow into Iran too. And given the way they bullied the last minority Parliament about extending the Afghanistan occupation mission with a bogus "bipartisan" motion (hello, can we count to four parties anyone?), how many (scared, leaderless and generally principle-less) Liberal MPs would have to defect to get a "mandate" for more misguided military misadventures from the current House?
I am not very comforted by slow-learner Harper's admission that the Iraq invasion was a mistake -- this only would help inform future decisions for politicians who don't suffer from the acute historical amnesia the Cons cultivate.
Wow, cool! I enjoy slow-learner Harper and baby Bush and commander Stevie Harper in opposition, David. It's so important not to have them as a majority government where they could even cause way more trouble! Hope they will fall soon...excited about how it will go tomorrow with the budget!!! It would be way easier if the Liberal Party were more intent and found it more easy to stand up to him on principle, I know!!!
Harper does not have a majority, and he won't be getting one either, so that point is moot.
Thanks, that's at least reassuring.
He needs to be prevented and I'm very hopeful on that!!! I would never want to find out what amount of shit he could do then either, Laura!
redundant cheerleaders in coalition-of-the-bullied-and-bought did
Bullies, o yes, I know. I liked it when that lady French Secretary of Defense told Bush and his guys a few things in the most frank and tough and outspoken way!!! It made me laugh because I imagined people quoting her words spoken at that occasion against other bullies!
recent decades of Republicanism-north. Luckily, paper ballot elections look like they are with us for a while yet -- thanks for pointing out that important difference.
Yeah, the Harper Conservatives are really bad enough and the expression Republicanism North is great, David, thanks so much but at least I'm glad they cannot cause the same amount their colleagues and siblings in bad spirit have been able to cause south of the border for decades on end!!!
You're quite right, David - holding the bully's coat is bad enough, but there's still a difference between the bully and his sycophant.
Yeah, Bush was the main offender and main bully and Harper was his political accomplice. Of course, Bush and the Republicans and the grievances in the US are worse, Harper and his Conservatives are still bad enough!!!
Post a Comment