What American's Ought to Know About Canada, But Don't

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ummm. Is the New Democratic Party of Saskatchewan failing to read between the lines? I admit, they are going much further than Mr. Martin, but at least they are not denying that there is a problem, which you seem to want to do.

What the NDP article talks about is completely different from what you are complaining about.

You're claiming the PM has dictorial power.

The article is talking about Canadians wanting to have more say in the way government's make decisions. The question is should parliament hold the reins of power or can power be given directly to the people.

I'm all in favour of looking for ways to get people more involved in the day-to-day political decision making process rather than just leaving power in the hands of MPs, although I have not seen any practical alternatives. Certainly, the US system is flawed and puts too much power in the hands of the rich.

[notyoueither]

Actually, they acknowledge what Martin said, but they say his reforms don't go far enough. I agree with them in some ways.

But at least now you aren't denying there is a problem.

[Tingkai]

You're imagining a problem that does not exist.

If I say "how can we improve the system" that doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem. How do we improve something that works well?

Where the system needs to adapt is in recognising that people are better educated and better informed than they were in the past. How do we link voters with the government in between elections? That's a far more important than procedural questions or whether the PM has too much power.

[Japher]

If I say "how can we improve the system" that doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem.

True. Improve means "better", not "working"

The main problem is that the metric is wrong.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You're imagining a problem that does not exist.

If I say "how can we improve the system" that doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem. How do we improve something that works well?

Where the system needs to adapt is in recognising that people are better educated and better informed than they were in the past. How do we link voters with the government in between elections? That's a far more important than procedural questions or whether the PM has too much power.

You may say tomato, I will say tomatoe. The truth is that a growing number of people see 'problems.' That would be why the now PM kicked off his leadership campaign with a speech on the topic. That would be why a publication of the NDP in Saskatchewan published a lengthy article on their view of the 'problem.' You may feel free to continue to think that we are all imagining things, that is your right. It is also your right to be wrong.

[Tingkai]

Whatever.

[notyoueither]

Canada's provinces have recognized that the present crisis in public confidence poses a threat to the legitimacy of Canadian political institutions. They are especially worried about the future, given the lack of youth participation.

Nope. No problem here.

[Uncle Sparky]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
So tell me something I've been dying to know, do Canadians think of themselves as Americans? The reason I ask is that I am curious about something that Charlton Heston, actor, gun nut and all around irrate citizen once said. In response to the PC proposal that American Indians be re-named "Native Americans", Chuck exclaimed: " I'm a Native American!" Chuck is infact a naturalized US citizen, having been born in Canada. While I realize that Canada is indeed located on the North American continent, I believe that most Canadians do not habitually think of themselves as Americans. Am I right? If I polled one thousand Canadian citizens on whether or not they thought of themselves as Americans how many would say that they did?

What's your opinion?

Ooooo ! I get to argue semantics !!!!

The Americas refer to both North and South America. Therefore the term Americans should rightfully refer to anyone inhabiting the main continental western hemisphere. Many Central and South Americans resent to co-opting of the name American by inhabitants of the USA. Most Canadians could care less.

I think all non members of the USA should refer to inhabitants of the USA as USers; not only would it distinguish them from the other Americans, but the pronunciation would fit their world image/view.

So, what do you think aboot that ?

[Max Webster]

Americans should know nothing about Canada, the less the better. Just wallow in your ignorance of us and the world, we don't mind.

[Uncle Sparky]

Originally posted by Max Webster
Americans should know nothing about Canada, the less the better. Just wallow in your ignorance of us and the world, we don't mind.

Hopefully they don't find out about our amazing psychic powers, until its too late...

Most of them don't realize Cronenberg's Scanners was a documentary.

[Tingkai]

Max Webster - that was a great band.

[notyoueither]

I knew he was Canadian, simply from the user name.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai


What the NDP article talks about is completely different from what you are complaining about.

You're claiming the PM has dictorial power.

The article is talking about Canadians wanting to have more say in the way government's make decisions. The question is should parliament hold the reins of power or can power be given directly to the people.

I'm all in favour of looking for ways to get people more involved in the day-to-day political decision making process rather than just leaving power in the hands of MPs, although I have not seen any practical alternatives. Certainly, the US system is flawed and puts too much power in the hands of the rich.

In California, citizens can place referenda on the ballot by petition. They can also recall elected officials. Perhaps Canada should consider both.

Tingkai, an just what is it about the US system that "puts" power in the hands of the rich?

[Ned]

NYE, on the Federalist Papers, they do note a flaw in the Westminster system in that the ability to appoint/remove and to control the salaries gives Parliament indirect power over all other bodies. Thus the nominal independence is not real.

Even in cases, analyzed in No.s 48&9, where there appears to be nominal independence, if one body actually controls the salaries of the other, and/or has the power of appointment or removal, the independence is subject to "encroachment." In the US constitution, therefore, there are limits on Congress's ability to affect the salaries of the other bodies. They may not reduce, for example, the salaries of judges. Neither may they increase or decrease the salary of the president.

The lack of independence means that the inferior power cannot stand against the tyranny of the superior, making extreme, tyrannical actions much more likely.

[Ned]

Had Charles I successfully dismissed Parliament, he would have ruled with absolute power. The resulting civil war established the principle that the King could not dismiss Parliament. But, that war established also that Parliament could dismiss and even execute every other governmental institution or officer. Thus the English Parliament is all powerful. This is fundamentally at odds with principles argued by our founding fathers when they called for separate and independent powers as a bulwark against tyranny.