The Canadian Comparison: Speaking Truth to U.S. Power

What goes around, comes around and it looks like America has returned to its individualistic selfish roots which benefit only a favoured few.

(CALGARY, Alberta) - Bank robber Willy Sutton was allegedly asked why he robbed banks. He reportedly answered: Because that’s where the money is. If you were to ask the tens of millions of immigrants—legal, illegal and aspiring, why they want to go to America, they would answer in a chorus: Because that’s where the money is; nothing to do with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but simply because that’s where the money is. Poor people have a gratuitous need for money.

The nineteenth century belonged to Britain; the twentieth belonged to the U.S.; and the twenty-first will belong to China. Early in the 20th century, however, Canada’s Prime Minister, Sir Wilfred Laurier said, “The twentieth century will belong to Canada.” We missed that. Not enough nuclear weapons, I suppose.

Economically, Canada is in excellent shape (despite being, in the eyes of many Americans, a Socialist/Communist-leaning country—what with universal health care and no Second Amendment). As Fareed Zakaria summarized in Newsweek earlier this year:

“Canada has been remarkably responsible over the past decade or so. It has had 12 years of budget surpluses, and can now spend money to fuel a recovery from a strong position. The government has restructured the national pension system, placing it on a firm fiscal footing, unlike our own insolvent Social Security. Its health-care system is cheaper than America's by far (accounting for 9.7 percent of GDP, versus 15.2 percent here), and yet does better on all major indexes.”

§ With less than 1 percent of the world's population, Canada has about 15% of the world's supply of accessible fresh water. Much of this water is stored in lakes and wetlands that cover about one-fifth of Canada's total area.

§ About 90% of Canada’s 31 million people live in a narrow strip within about 200 kms of the U.S. border—an area making up only about one-tenth of Canada's total area.

§ Almost half of Canada's land area is covered with forest, the accessible portions of which provide abundant resources for lumber, pulp, and paper. Canada is the world leader in the export of pulp and paper and also exports large amounts of softwood lumber, mostly to the United States.

§ Canada has about one-sixth of the world's total installed hydroelectric generating capacity.

§ Canada has a national debt of about $450 billion; compared to a U.S. national debt of $12 trillion. The Canadian per capita debt is $15,000 compared to $39,000 in the U.S.

§ Home ownership in Canada is 68.4% compared to 68.0% in the U.S., despite the fact that mortgage deductions cost the federal government $100 billion a year

I concluded Part 1 with: “On the basis of homicides, infant mortality, life expectancy, religious tolerance and security of the person, Canada is the safer, more tolerant and more civilized society—for all the many flaws this nation has. Many of the flaws, particularly here in Alberta, exist because of a distorting American influence.”

Here is an International Rankings table showing that America is, despite the objections from the patriotically indoctrinated, actually in decline on the world stage.

I first noticed the beginning of the decline in American world power in the late 1970s and presented my findings in a 1981 Maclean’s article where I reported that in 1969, American companies occupied 36 of the top 50 spots in the world accounting for nearly 80% of the total revenues. By 1980 the American representation had fallen to 22 companies accounting for 52% of the total revenue.

Now, in 2009, there are only 15 American companies in the top 50, accounting for only 33% of the total revenues. In forty years, 21 American companies have fallen off the listand the American proportion of revenues has fallen by nearly half.

The beginning of the decline could probably be pinpointed because the Fortune list goes back to 1955. But it’s ancient history, now, and hardly worth researching. My educated guess is that it began in the late 1960s, with the Vietnam War—another American war started under false pretences. Look up the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which didn’t happen, but enflamed Congress to pass legislation authorizing LBJ to begin the Vietnam debacle in earnest. Just like Bush’s WMD in Iraq. America broke the country, now they own it.

Ferdinand Lundberg in The Rich and the Super-Rich, written before the Vietnam War was really underway, described the power of American wealth which involved “the nation in cycles of ferocious wars that are to the interest of asset preservation and asset expansion but are contrary to the interest of the nation and the world”. Now we have both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran next? ‘Nuff said.

The U.S. does, indeed, have a 51st state, but it’s not Canada, it’s the State of Denial covering all the land between Canada and Mexico and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Its exact population is a guess, but it’s at least tens of millions of people.

I have long critiqued the mythology of the Founding Fathers, but Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul makes my point very succinctly. He said:

“The only remaining great rational Utopian project of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is the United States itself. Everyone else has moved on, for better or for worse. But the United States was frozen in place by its constitution early in the new rational movement. Its inherent wealth and constant growth have helped it avoid those moments of true rational reality when the whole edifice collapses. And so the structure of the benevolent, rational monarch remains, as does the late-mediaeval concept of balanced estates held together by rational structure, as do all the terrifying contradictions of a foundation constructed on the one hand of class and slavery, while on the other of equality and freedom.

Many other nations have Constitutions, but America is the only nation on earth that treats its Constitution as if it were carved onto tablets by God and brought down from Mt. Sinai by St. George.

“The obvious observation is: it works. The counter-observation would be that with such wealth and power anything works. The point, however, is not one of judgment. It is merely to show how a rational ideology locks a society into a logic so ferocious that it becomes impossible to think your way out of the contradictions.” (emphasis added) In other words, culturally, the U.S. acts and believes today, as if it is still the eighteenth century.

(Think about this: If the Founding Fathers had known about future weapons, like the AK47, Uzis, Saturday Night Specials and the wide availability of assault rifles, would the Second Amendment have been written so sloppily?)

Many Americans will deny this, arguing from what they have been indoctrinated to believe, beginning in elementary school, when they had not yet developed their critical and judgemental faculties, and not from real historical knowledge. Unless you understand the pervasive and overarching role of the Enlightenment in the foundation and evolution of the United States, you don’t know much beyond jingoistic sloganeering.

John Wain, in his biography of Samuel Johnson adds a little unacknowledged detail in the founding and growth of the United States. He says that

“while refusing to pay taxes, the colonists nevertheless continued to accept the protection of British naval power. It has always seemed to me that [Samuel] Johnson had a real point here. No country in history has gone through its teething period with so little interference from outside as the United States. During the century and a half in which the country grew up, the possibility of foreign invasion was simply not a problem. And the reason, or one of the reasons, must surely be the thoroughness with which the British navy policed the North Atlantic. A pretty handsome service to be had without paying a penny.”

“Whereas European royalty and nobility played profound integral roles in European history, the latter-day American rich were more like hitchhikers who opportunistically climbed aboard a good thing. They produced neither the technology, the climate, the land, the people nor the political system. Nor did they, like many European groups (as in England) take over the terrain as invading conquerors. Rather did they infiltrate the situation from below, insinuate themselves into opportunely presented economic gaps, subvert various rules and procedures, and, as it were ride a rocket to the moon and beyond, meanwhile through their propagandists presenting themselves, no less, as the creators of machine industrialization which was in fact copied from England and transplanted into a lush terrain.”

Americans believe they did it all themselves (aided by the “genius and prescience” of the founding fathers) when, really, they were mostly just lucky. We have similar logical distortions here in Alberta where we sit on so much oil wealth. To hear many Albertans say it, that’s what makes us great!

America as a nation, despite all its human and industrial wealth, has preferred to fritter it all away and live far beyond its means—partaking of what was believed to be an endless free lunch. If Americans wanted something now—instantly—they just put it on a credit card or, as a nation, borrowed from Japan or China. I remember in the recession of the early 1980s, Japan started buying up properties in the U.S. Time magazine even had a cover story on how foreigners were buying up the country. But, it was a seven day wonder and never followed up and actually addressed as an issue of national concern.

At the end of 2006, non-US citizens and institutions held 44% of federal debt held by the public. About 66% of that was held by the central banks of other countries, in particular the central banks of Japan and China. In May 2009, the US owed China $772 billion!

The White House estimates that the government’s debt servicing will be more than $700 billion a year by 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if there are substantial cuts in annual budget deficits. The White House also estimates that the government will have to borrow about $3.5 trillion more over the next three years. In addition, the Treasury has to refinance a huge amount of short-term debt that was issued during the financial crisis. Treasury officials estimate that about 36 percent of the government’s marketable debt—about $1.6 trillion—is coming due in the next few months.

No country can sustain the haemorrhaging of such national wealth for long and keep its independence.

If I was an American, I would have trouble sleeping at night. As William H. Gross, managing director of the Pimco Group, the global bond-management firm says: “What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter. The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter.”

We’re not out of the woods yet in terms of further global dislocations, but Canada is in a better position than most other industrialized nations to weather it. In fact, as Fareed Zakaria wrote:

“Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize. The Toronto Dominion Bank, for example, was the 15th-largest bank in North America one year ago. Now it is the fifth-largest. It hasn't grown in size; the others have all shrunk.”

Catherine Ford, retired Calgary Herald newspaper columnist and editorial writer, said:

“If there is a basic, easily stated difference between Canadians and Americans, it is in the philosophy of personal privilege: Americans believe unless they are specifically prohibited against doing something, it’s their right to proceed; Canadians believe exactly the opposite. It is the supremacy of the individual over the collective in the United States and the opposite in Canada.”

“This business of rights, that's not our concept of government. We know what our rights are. We enjoy them. We don't have to state them. This rather American approach to it is really not ours. We don't worry about things like that. We do what's right.”

Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye: “The central fact of Canadian history is the rejection of the American Revolution.”

"It would be some time before I fully realized that the United States sees little need for diplomacy. Power is enough. Only the weak rely on diplomacy.…The Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy. Nor does the United States."

The United States, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, did not like Boutros-Ghali's independent-minded leadership and blocked his bid for a second term in 1996.

As writer Colin Wilson observed: “Rome typifies what can go wrong when human evolution is restricted to the purely material level.”

Like Rome, America is a society based primarily on material and military might. There are some Americans who argue that Canadians never fought to have a country, making us a second class nation to the American warrior. Au contraire says Roger D. Hall in Encyclopaedia Britannica

“The War of 1812 can largely be traced to the Anglo-U. S. rivalry in the fur trade. British traders and soldiers had supplied Indian tribes and afforded them moral support in their contest with the advancing U.S. frontier. Britain had surrendered the western posts by the Jay Treaty of 1794, but the cause of the Canadian fur trade and of the Indians remained the same: preserving the wilderness. Certainly, apart from single-ship actions and privateering, the war was fought for the conquest of Canada and elimination of the British as an ally of the Indians. In the end, the war was a stalemate and closed with no concession by either side. However, it did push back the Indian frontier, increase the breach between the United States and the British North American colonies, and confirm the U.S.-Canadian boundary. It also gave Canadians a stake in their land; they had fought for it, sometimes English and French together, and successfully staved off invasion.”

If America covets something, like Canada’s abundance of oil or fresh water, we will be powerless to resist. I know individual Americans, fine people all, who would dispute this statement, but they are not the Americans in charge. Reading Steven Kinzer’s book Overthrow is a chilling read for non-Americans as Kinzer describes the thirteen legitimate, many democratically elected governments the U.S. has overthrown or undermined over the last century. American actions, in its own business, interests have resulted in the poverty, death and condemnation of millions of people—including its own citizens. American leaders are ruthless.

In 1776, Adam Smith published Wealth of Nations, coincidentally, in America’s founding year. Smith had written: “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons.”

Smith was talking about the business class. This is the class of people who actually run America. The ethic applies as much today, as it did then.

I’ve been trying to figure out why it feels socially unacceptable to be anti-American. I think I’ve figured it out. It’s because Americans are supposed to be the good guys, and to be anti-American is to somehow be opposed to motherhood and apple pie—the American icons of goodness.

But, in too many obvious ways over the last half century that I have been observing, Americans are not the good guys. This leads me to the awareness that there are at least three, perhaps several, Americas—all different, yet occupying the same space and time. The term anti-American has subtleties.

America is not so much a country, as an ideology. “UnAmerican” is a real concept in the minds of many Americans, suggesting that there are specific American ways of thinking and acting and anyone outside those boundaries is unAmerican. Except in occasional passing, I can’t think of another modern nation where Un— as a prefix is seriously used. UnCanadian? Not in our lexicon.

It also means I am opposed to certain classes of American citizens: Business leaders, and that great grouping who have gathered under the tent of Republicans and the religious right and the millions of unthinking sycophants of those groups.

There are millions of American citizens who are good people. The tragedy for them is that they have no influence on the national stage or any say in the direction of the country.

Forty-odd years ago, when I was in high school, one of the poems we learned in Literature class was Shelley’s “Ozymandias”. At the time, America was the colossus in the world; Russia merely a communist threat held at bay by the U.S. It only came to light later that the arms race was started by the U.S. who falsely reported that there was a “missile gap” with the Russians. The result was psychological terror across the continent (and the world) and billions in profits to the arms industry.

Today, in that poem, I see the potential, even likely future, of America. My heart goes out to all the good people in America who had no hand in creating America’s vast global dysfunctionality—other than through their passivity.

Writing in the New York Times, in a column titled "Advice From Grandma", Thomas Friedman considers the future of America.

America’s future strength, Friedman says, is its people's imagination compared to China and its authoritarian culture which stifles imagination.

§ The positive potential of the internet has opened the door to “digital lynch mobs”

§ “A U.S. business community that has become so globalized that it only comes to Washington to lobby for its own narrow interests; it rarely speaks out anymore in defense of national issues like health care, education and open markets.”

“The standard answer is that we need better leaders ,” he says, but goes on to say that “the real answer is that we need better citizens. We need citizens who will convey to their leaders that they are ready to sacrifice, even pay, yes, higher taxes, and will not punish politicians who ask them to do the hard things. Otherwise, folks, we’re in trouble. A great power that can only produce suboptimal responses to its biggest challenges will, in time, fade from being a great power—no matter how much imagination it generates.”

It was the great American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes who said: "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization." By hating and refusing to pay taxes, we see what Americans have actually bought.

Herein lies the crunch. Globally, America is so far behind the eight ball—as I’ve shown with international comparisons—that it will take a great national effort—greater even, than the Manhattan Project—to first, regain global parity, and then learn how to make a positive contribution towards the advancement of mankind—beyond the material realm.

(The obvious example here is the great effort undertaken to put man on the moon—then, despite today’s rhetoric—never going back. The Chinese will probably be the next people on the moon.)

This means that the American people are going to have to publicly and consciously decide to live within their means and significantly reduce their standard of living. They can no longer get away with their disproportionate gobbling of the earth’s resources. The other peoples they share the planet with will no longer tolerate such destructive selfishness.

David Brooks, also writing in the New York Times, in a column titled "The Values Question" says that

“During the first many decades of this nation’s existence, the United States was a wide-open, dynamic country with a rapidly expanding economy. It was also a country that tolerated a large amount of cruelty and pain—poor people living in misery, workers suffering from exploitation.”

What goes around, comes around and it looks like America has returned to its individualistic selfish roots which benefit only a favoured few.

Daniel Johnson was born near the midpoint of the twentieth century in Calgary, Alberta. In his teens he knew he was going to be a writer, which is why he was one of only a handful of boys in his high school typing class—a skill he knew was going to be necessary. He defines himself as a social reformer, not a left winger, the latter being an ideological label which, he says, is why he is not an ideologue. From 1975 to 1981 he was reporter, photographer, then editor of the weekly Airdrie Echo. For more than ten years after that he worked with Peter C. Newman, Canada’s top business writer (notably a series of books, The Canadian Establishment). Through this period Daniel also did some national radio and TV broadcasting. He gave up journalism in the early 1980s because he had no interest in being a hack writer for the mainstream media and became a software developer and programmer. He retired from computers last year and is now back to doing what he loves—writing and trying to make the world a better place

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

henrylow December 31, 2009 12:49 am (Pacific time)

There's a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966. latest trend

Engle December 4, 2009 9:25 am (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson your analysis is based on limited and short-sighted information that is frequently used by those untrained in the difficulty of projecting accurate economic forecasts, suffice, you are once again wrong. I dare say if we do bottom out, then not only will Canada fail on a far more harsher level, but any future recovery will come long after us. You may have a surplus at the present, but that is an artifical surplus, a paper surplus, your current and future wealth is based on what we import from you and what we export to you. Your country is trending in a conservative fashion, and you have some excellent business leaders now in policy-making positions, so I expect my favorite [other] country, Canada, to weather our current global economic storm. We here will also, and soon will have a dramatic change in our economic policies, not because of some kind of expert leadership, but because the current power in DC wants more to survive in elective office than anything else. If by chance they continue down the road of out of control spending, then Canada will also suffer far worse consequences.

Ah, Engle, you’re back with another ad hominem attack. You’re putting your faith in economists, are you. Well, as Steven Mihm wrote in last year’s NYT magazine:

“Recessions are signal events in any modern economy. And yet remarkably, the profession of economics is quite bad at predicting them. A recent study looked at “consensus forecasts” (the predictions of large groups of economists) that were made in advance of 60 different national recessions that hit around the world in the ’90s: in 97 percent of the cases, the study found, the economists failed to predict the coming contraction a year in advance. On those rare occasions when economists did successfully predict recessions, they significantly underestimated the severity of the downturns. Worse, many of the economists failed to anticipate recessions that occurred as soon as two months later.”

I can go on. As Leonard Silk, economist and late economics columnist for the NYT said:

"Economists try to do what all scientists do—observe certain aspects of the natural or social world, gather data to measure those aspects, construct theories to explain the data, and test the theories against reality to validate or invalidate them. On the whole, however, economists do a weak job at all this. They commonly spend vast amounts of time observing each other's articles rather than reality. Their data are poor, and they devote little time to improving them. Their theories are rigid and mechanistic. And they rarely discard them unless some academic or government position is at stake."

Economics is a pseudoscience about as accurate as astrology.

Mark M Riley December 3, 2009 12:13 pm (Pacific time)
I inadvertently used my middle name. I was on the phone and was spelling out my full name and now you know my full name. I am in the Portland Oregon phone directory (call me collect from Alberta), and we can make a time to meet to discuss our integrity and other characteristics/accomplishments in person, okay?. I live in the northwest hills above Portland, am retired with four children, and an ever-growing number of grandchildren to my absolute delight. It is because of my grandchildren that I belong to a number of organizations that want (and will) to clean out the corruption we see in government at all levels. I do see Canada as clearly having more serious problems than us, but I don't believe you will be part of the solution Daniel, do you? Besides the articles and comments you make, do you do anything else? Any hands on activism to address your problems? Or do you just sit on the sidelines and let others do that? I have noticed that those kids from my youth who sat out on physical activities also sat out on all other things in life as they gor older. Even a few ended up living in single and double wide's frying things up everyday. Dismal unhappy lives
You think you can defend yourself against the facts by attacking me? Won’t work.
You talk about America’s greatness and potential. So please address this fact.
America has a $12 trillion national debt—a per capita debt 2.6 times that of Canada. Much higher unemployment and proportion of families living in social desperation. Nearly half your national debt is owed to China and Japan. You’re involved in two wars that are eating up hundreds of billions more. You are nowhere near energy independence, although America got the wake up call in 1973 and did nothing significant about it.
The White House estimates that the government’s debt servicing will be more than $700 billion a year by 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if there are substantial cuts in annual budget deficits. The White House also estimates that the government will have to borrow about $3.5 trillion more over the next three years. In addition, the Treasury has to refinance a huge amount of short-term debt that was issued during the financial crisis. Treasury officials estimate that about 36 percent of the government’s marketable debt—about $1.6 trillion—is coming due in the next few months.
Canada has had a budget surplus for the last 12 years.
So what are you going to do?
Mike Riley December 3, 2009 10:33 am (Pacific time)
Bottom line: Slavery existed in Canada. It is also in a way being still practiced there. Your wonderful Aboriginal people are in prisons at 5 times their rate of population, while Africans there are in lock-up at 3 times their population percentage. What programs has Canada developed to deal with this situation? Slavery still exists in many area's of the world and America is engaged in all these locations trying to put an end to it. Canada does nothing in this area but talk about what's wrong with it. Slavery is as old as the written history of mankind and it is reasonable to assume that it was going on long before recorded history. There is not a place on the planet so far that it has not been practiced by native peoples, including the various tribe in ancient Europe. It was the United States that took the forefront on the global level to bring it to an end. As written above, it still festers in some locations, but good Americans are trying to end it in many different and novel ways. Our Declaration of Independence was the document that helped shape this wonderful country and that coupled with our Constitution and Bill of Rights (God given rights!) has made us the preeminent country in the world. I must admit that Bob Herbert of the NY Times is not part of my regular reading list, but he certainly has not helped stop the circulation bleeding of that dinasaur. But what Herbert does do, as I have reviewed several of his articles, is probably not on purpose mind you, but exposes the tragic consequences of what happens when unions get too much power and job placement is not based on skills, nor promotions based on merit, but some other mechanism that has caused this deterioration he writes of. Mediocrity may work for many other places on the planet, but not here, as evidenced by our leading advances in literally all tech. advances.
Okay, okay, I’ll fess up. Can’t run from the truth any longer. Yes, we had slaves in Canada right up to 1981 but our self-evidently flawed and not so wonderful Constitution of 1982 prohibited any new slavery. We can no longer own other human beings, but we can still rent them. However, I’m happy to report, I can keep the slaves I owned up to 1982.
BTW. Don’t think I haven’t noticed that sometimes you’re Mark Riley and sometimes you’re Mike Riley. I’m not surprised at your lack of integrity.
Mark Riley December 3, 2009 9:29 am (Pacific time)
Daniel Johnson you stated that "Canada has never had slavery." Time to rethink that statement: "Slavery in Canada has a history stretching from prehistoric times to the 1830s, when slavery was officially abolished. Some slaves were of African descent, while others were aboriginal (typically called "panis", likely a corruption of Pawnee).Slavery was practiced by some aboriginal nations, who routinely captured slaves from neighbouring tribes.African slaves were forcibly brought as chattel by Europeans to the Canada. Chattel slavery, a form of hereditary slavery, was established by European colonization and settlement of Canada during the 17th century. Legally, slaves were regarded as movable possessions and private property. Large-scale plantation slavery of the sort that existed in warmer parts of the New World never existed because there were no plantations. Most of the slaves in Canada were domestic house servants, although some performed agricultural labour."
As a nation Canada has never had slavery as an official policy. Canada, in fact, was the terminus of an underground railway giving freedom to unknown numbers of escaped slaves fleeing from the United States who had this wonderful document called the Declaration of Independence with a famous preamble: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” except for slaves who, not coincidentally, were also owned by some of the framers.
But you don't have to rely on me for misguided criticism. Bob Herbert, in the NYT writes: “The United States is broken—school systems are deteriorating, the economy is in shambles, homelessness and poverty rates are expanding—yet we’re nation-building in Afghanistan, sending economically distressed young people over there by the tens of thousands at an annual cost of a million dollars each.” (Read it for yourself: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/opinion/01herbert.html?emc=eta1)
Mark Riley December 3, 2009 9:19 am (Pacific time)
Daniel Johnson you underestimate the power of American Patriotism. You obviously have little knowledge about American history, which is why you pick out the negative themes while overlooking our strengths in your misguided pursuit. As America goes, then so goes Canada. We will be around long after Canada ceases to exist as a political state. You say we are bankrupt, but then 90% of our work force is engaged. Currently we have politicans making poor decisions about the direction of our economy, but our system of government will soon allow us to change that. For example if an economic shut down happened between our two countries, Canada would soon be a third world environment and whither away. You are completely dependent on our economic system. We are an innovative people who have overcome incredible obstacles and have continually evolved, correcting past bad acts. Canada has prospered only because of your location next to us. There is very little partiotism in Canada, usually just coming from the brave men and women who serve in occupations where they actually have to sacrifice their comfort to keep the personally self-interested in comfort. Our form of government provides a process for us to do that. We have this wonderful document called the Declaration of Independence. We cut our ties to a totaltarian type of control that the British crown inflicted on us. Your Head of State is the Queen of England. You still pay homage, even though honorary, to that form of terroristic control that the royals inflicted all over the world. We have over 300 million people here, and 85% are quite happy with their health care, and we will soon assure that all have good access to medical treatments, which is the best in the world, as many of your citizens attest to. Note: A continually growing number of Canadians come here for medical services, and we all know why. As you continue to provide misleading information about America and augment cherry-picked negative aspects, we will continue to solve problems around the world and within our country. What will you be doing? By chance do you have Canadian publications publishing these sniping articles about us? Of course not. My guess is that you don't even realize what is happening in your own government, which is the same "trending" that is going on all over Europe and here in my country. You see the trees, but do you see the forest? If you can, then you should be able to extrapolate that you are missing the big picture.
And another resident from the State of Denial appears.
Thomas Fitch December 2, 2009 6:10 pm (Pacific time)
It appears for some their reach has exceeded their grasp, not an unusual condition for those who have never engaged in the heavy lifting that is required to build a nation and to provide the ongoing hard work ensuring that it remains strong for upcoming generations. I have these great WWII vets that I play golf with on a regular basis and as they say just because you had worn the uniform that doesn't give you a free ride. I concur in the same assessment in my war 20 years later. Doing the heavy lifting whether it's in combat or going out and getting hard jobs done is what has made America strong. We have been criticized for generations from abroad and here at home by domestic malcontents who have no clue how and why they have the freedoms they have. But still we continue to prosper, always looking for ways to improve the domestic condition. Jealousy by those abroad and from the domestic whiners simply allow us to peruse the DSM IV and see some real life examples of what that manuel describes. By the way Daniel J, with the myriad of problems Canada has, ranging from the gross mistreatment of the Aboriginal natives (a very serious problem!), to the declining health care program. Do you ever provide your able help in developing problem-solving solutions? Or is that above your pay grade and experience level? Your ongoing criticism of America has no real audience, have you noticed? Is this just some way to make you feel good so you don't have to dwell on the other negative things in Canada like those referenced above? Would you like me to set you up with some speaking engagements to prattle on with some people down here? I'm serious, certainly you must be a terrific public speaker with a real charismatic presence like so many others of similar strong opinions? Put it on the line if you feel so strongly. Did you know that the word liberal is an anagram for braille. Seeing, talking and doing are quite a bit different as many find out when the heavy lifting begins and the blinders are pulled away by reality. Peace to you Canadian. I will be going to BC this spring and will be seeing some good Canadian friends. We just joke about our differences, though some times I give them the straight talk, like what's the best way to sink a Canadian navy ship? Put it in water!
Of course you’ve been criticized. Americans have been ravaging the planet for more than half a century. And my critiques are the same as many Americans. Read Stephen Kinzer’s book Overthrow for details on all the legitimate governments the U.S. has destabilized or overthrown in the last century.
Prosperous? $12 trillion national debt and two wars in the works that are going to run up hundreds of billions more. More than 10% official unemployment and millions with no health care, millions more on the edge of financial disaster. Yeah, prosperous. If you read my article, you’re obviously a resident of the State of Denial.
Canada is not perfect. There are many things that need to be addressed to make Canada better. But I'm glad the problems aren't on the same scale that American's face. That’s one thing we acknowledge unlike so many Americans who think they have the perfect system because America was founded by demigods. If America is so powerful and prosperous, why do you even care what I write? Or are you a little sensitive these days? On shaky ground? I know many fine Americans and there are millions more I don’t know, so I don’t wish American citizens ill. But at least Canada is not bankrupt.
Our treatment of the aboriginals is nothing to be proud of. But as America expanded west, you took care of your aboriginals through genocide. And don’t get me started on your nation’s treatment of blacks, right from the beginning. Canada has never had slavery
Brian December 2, 2009 12:02 pm (Pacific time)
I have found over the years when debating issues with some people that when you are winning the debate then the name calling begins, usually from afar in most cases. I have researched national healthcare programs for several years and though we need much improvement here in America, we still have the best in the world. People come here from all over the world, even though they come from many of these countries like Canada and the UK where many seem to think they are doing a great job. Why would patients come here? When people become ill, and they have the resources they become quite pragmatic. I dare say there is nothing in the Constitution that lays out that healthcare is a natural right or that to secure happiness the people of America must provide it. You could say everyone should have their own (fill in the blank) to help them secure happiness. Of course all well meaning people want all to have health care, and we will always do what we can in that area, but it is not a constitutional right. As far as 40 million going without healthcare, that is a bogus number, there are no legitimate sources that come even close to this number. It's one of those mythical numbers that got out there that has no merit. If someone has a source that provides that count I would like to see it, then I could take government sources and show why it's simply a scare tactic used by those who cannot use facts. So one should always check out sources and see how legitimate they are with their numbers. When someone does not like your sources, they always have a problem with them, so in the case of how well things are going with Canada's heathcare program there are plenty of legitimate sources and mainstream media stories that let you know that this is a system we in America want no part of. We can do better, that's for sure. By the way, the NCPA is an excellent source and if it's so bad, then provide evidence where they are incorrect. It's all documented. Just because it does not fit your agenda does not make it false, it just shows what your agenda really is.
Brian: Make your point. You’re coming across like Thomas, Earl and Roger with general unsupported assertions. Of course people come from all over to get medical care. But not ordinary people. You need megadollars to get medical care in the U.S. No one in Canada has ever died or lost their house or had to file bankruptcy for want of medical care which is routine in the U.S. Forty million? You’re the first to dispute the number, but if you have a good source, give us the link. NCPA is a good source? Only if you share their libertarian bias.
Henry Clay Ruark December 2, 2009 7:41 am (Pacific time)
To all: Never forget absolute first principle of any/all reliable communicattion is: KNOW THY SOURCE !! Every human conversation starts with that foundation --unless you habitually listen to masked man without ever checking to see who he is, and from whence cometh the stuff he is peddling. Honest, open, democratic dialog is no different, only more demanding while easier to check out source and any bias. That source check will show political stance behind what is, these days, nearly always propandandized content...but from reliable source, fitting your own values, beliefs and experiences, you have proven, justified background on which to make those judgments called for by reasonable/rational citizen responsibilities in a democracy. When-known, you can adjust to absorb odd/peculiar/, even perverted, stance and still gain and learn from that sensible,responsible and accountable reference. BUT FIRST AND ALWAYS KNOW THY SOURCE !!!
Henry Clay Ruark December 1, 2009 1:50 pm (Pacific time)
Earl et al: Your reliance on "extreme right-wing think tank", as characterized by Daniel (and confirmed by me, now and on several previous citations, by checking out what they cite) proves up mine via naivete and distorted choice of facts to pervert unmistakable and very obvious realities. Reliance on such soon kills off any possible value of any ostensibly factual statement made by them, simply by very obvious comparison with known reliables. Open, honest, democratic dialog here depends on proven reliable sources, checkable vs other nationally-accepted ones rather than skillfully chosen to offer carefully-contrived distortions.
Henry Clay Ruark December 1, 2009 1:22 pm (Pacific time)
Earl et al: Your long self-praising piece exhibits exceeding naivete, even perhaps even beyond that permitted by the license of "American exceptionalism". IF we doing so well, sir, how come it took us over 200 years to achieve some measure of black-American true freedom per "equal" --with much yet remaining to be done ? Also one must wonder why we have over 40 million without that essential birthright --if we mean what Constitution so clearly states-- of human right to healthcare, essential you must admit for any pursuit of happiness. We do well to listen/learn from friendly criticism rather than from that imposed by a tyrant, if/when our vaunted system does collapse, done in by what has collapsed others before us --naivete, ennui, self-interest uber alles, the worship of the almight dollar, and other major, very messy issues/problems/plagues seeking some solid solution via our governance system --held up in horror by some as already too/strong, become too/centralized, building too-dependency --and badly failing our youth and middle class ?? Do you contend even one of those characterizations is off the mark ? To do so today in the massive flow of factual information and full report is to prove up potent inability to see-and-understand: one definition of naivete. Then there's the whole area of false patriotism, worship of the self specially stated, which can also often be easily detected... IF we are to survive --as individuals OR republic-- we had best listen/learn from and and all possible sources, and unhesitatingle fly at the job of making come true what the Founders set up as solid and working system, which we've allowed to be disintegrated in many ways.
Earl December 1, 2009 12:50 pm (Pacific time)
Daniel J. there are several links in several below posts, from both the U.S. and Canadian government that show the crime stats. Are you familiar with the process of using links in this format? Maybe there's a problem in that area for you? I don't use wikipedia either, but a below poster who did shows where it referenced the primary sources, so I assume that fits your criteria. Seems unfortunate that you can't grasp the process to verify the criminal data reality. I see you are now going to death rates to change issues? We measure mortality cause and effect variables much differently than in Canada, so they can be misleading unless you have had some training in that area. For example we incorporate literally all deaths, including stillborns and early infant deaths where many countries don't use that. It lowers the average age considerably, as do many other types of early deaths. I see from your picture that you are caucasian, likewise. White men in both of our countries check out on average at 76. Your women live about two years longer than our white women and much longer than other racial groups. Once again our methodologies for measuring mortality rates actually lower our average mortality rate in comparison to many other countries, while your contrasting methods raise yours. There are some interesting myths about our different healthcare delivery systems which a poster pointed out below which I will link below. For example: "Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer: Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians. More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent). Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent). The below link provides some sobering news for you in Canada. Not to mention your growing shortage of healthcare professionals. You think they are coming down here? I say good trade, you keep our old draft dodgers and deserters, while we update your Canadian immigrant MD's training and certification with our professional standards so they can work here more efficiently. It's a win win for all. Ihttp://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
NCPA. Extremist right wing think tank. No credibility with me. Unless you guys come up with some objective, verifiable facts, you’re wasting your time and mine. And mine is far more valuable.

Earl December 1, 2009 10:01 am (Pacific time)
I went over the below links and it is very easy to read the graphs and compare the States with Canada. The use of Wikipedia as a source would not be my choice, though it refers to U.S. government stats, but if you go to the primary source then you can verify the data as genuine. I must admit I'm somewhat shocked about the high violent crime rate in Canada, but it is a fact, and well sourced via the government databases. As far as narrative in what the data means is what I find controversial, so simply using the actual numbers in the graphs is what is perfectly clear to even the most skeptical out there. Daniel Johnson having read your article and the reference you made to your early school days and the poem you used in reference to my country, no doubt you have been going through an anti-American inculcating process for quite some time now. Many of our poorly uninformed students have similar misinformed educational experiences as you clearly ackowledge. Frankly over many many years I have read very similar assessments that you have made about America, and by people far more skilled. Different age groups, coupled with different personal experiences and educational backgrounds have no doubt a wide variety of opinions about our country and their world views. Some view patriotism as some evil form of "nationalism", while others will get involved with patriotic types of activities, many leaving comfortable lives and going into our military. Though many do go for other reasons such as job training and for future educational benefits. Your Canadian culture, regardless of your personal opinion is largely influenced by American culture, not vice versa. Your disdain for us in the overall scheme of reality pretty much has a nill effect, as do all those who are like-minded. You made an earlier comment that China would be the new world leader and if any people went back to the moon it would be the Chinese. Well that's about as likely as Canada doing the same. China is a very old country, but it's current economic system is a house of cards sitting on a bubble. America, much to your chagrin I'm sure, will continue to be what we have always been, the best place in the world to live. Considering that all people are equal at birth, then why has America accomplished so much? What are the reasons we have been so successful? It's simple, it's our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, what else could it be other than our form of government? And Canada being next to us has done well because of us and out innovations. That keyboard you move your fingers on is our gift to you, along with countless other innovations. Your Canadian astronauts go into space because of us (couple times with the Russians), and we are glad we have the engineering genius to take less qualified foreigners with us. As our engineers say, "even a Canadian can do it." P.S. We sent our people around the moon 41 years ago this month, so when the Chinese do that (or Canada) that will be a big lag time. Are you familiar with our present space program? Our medical inventions? Our assistance we provide to people all around the world? Have you ever helped people from another country? We are much different and I am so pleased about that, but I will always help you if you are in trouble. Please note a portion of my taxes provides military assistance for you. Your welcome, but can you say the same? I have no problem if you want to reimburse me.
Let me just remind you, Earl, that if America hadn't provoked so many enemies over the last half century or more, we wouldn't need your military protection. After all, Sweden doesn't need you. If we were situated elsewhere in the world, we would be in the same situation as Sweden.
As far as the violent crime statistics are concerned, I wonder what your agenda is. You're the third person to make that assertion, but no one, so far, has given me a link through which I can verify it.
Why the focus on violent crime? I'm surprised you're not aruging that America has a lower infant mortality rate, higher life expectancy, etc.
I'll requote Fareed Zakaria from Newsweek who said: "Canada has been remarkably responsible over the past decade or so. It has had 12 years of budget surpluses, and can now spend money to fuel a recovery from a strong position. The government has restructured the national pension system, placing it on a firm fiscal footing, unlike our own insolvent Social Security. Its health-care system is cheaper than America's by far (accounting for 9.7 percent of GDP, versus 15.2 percent here), and yet does better on all major indexes."
You talk about the wonders of your space program but you are probably not aware that if it hadn’t been for the German scientists captured after WW2, like Werner von Braun, there wouldn’t have been an American space program worth mentioning.
Reread my article and see all the reputable facts I quote. All you’re offering is what amounts to hot air. Wikipedia is fine if they have external links, to which I go. It's you guys who keep quoting Wikipedia and nothing else substantial.
Reread the quotes in my article by John Wain and Ferdinand Lundberg, if you dare. Refute them if you can. America has made so much progress because it has been LUCKY.
Ersun Warncke December 1, 2009 12:38 am (Pacific time)
Daniel, I do not think you should go so far in labeling all of your southern neighbors as being one collective people with an identical purpose and direction. The people in the United States are highly diverse in culture, ideology, and geography. We do not have a collective nationalistic identity. Your criticisms are mainly focused on a false nationalistic identity that is based on the actions and propaganda of the U.S. government and a small number of very large corporations that are intimately connected with the U.S. government. The U.S. is legally and constitutionally 50 sovereign States, and the U.S. government is a body for the negotiation of the collective actions of those States. Personally, I think that is a perfectly adequate model. You do not see any European countries, which are smaller than many/most of our States, giving up their sovereignty to the EU. If you want to criticize the U.S. government, then it is incumbent on you to propose a better solution. The government is the people, and the people have the government of their choosing. Because all government starts with individual sovereignty, I would argue that it is impossible to ever have a legitimate government on the scale of the United States unless its powers are very limited. Having a very limited U.S. government is not having no government at all. It means having legitimate State governments, which cannot exist if their powers have been devolved to an illegitimate national government.
Good point Ersun, except that I am only referring to collective statistics comparing the two countries. If it comes down to comparing state by state and province by province, I wouldn't waste my time. I have more important things to do.
Incidentally, you say: "The government is the people, and the people have the government of their choosing." No one alive today, there or here, chose the governments under which we live. That's the downside of constitutions. Future residents are locked into things that can sometimes be not only inappropriate but downright unfair.
I'll give you one example of many. Prince Edward Island is an island and our smallest province with about 140,000 people. Federally it has four of 308 seats in the House of Commons. Alberta has 25x the population but only 28 seats in the HofC. PEI has one seat/35,000 while Alberta has one seat per 128,000. In terms of democracy, it is completely unfair. Even worse, in the Senate, PEI has four seats and Alberta has six. I'm sure you can come up with equally egregious examples there, that are impossible to change because of the nature of the original set up. (My comments are not meant to be any kind of negative reflection on the people of PEI.)
Roger Miles November 30, 2009 6:40 pm (Pacific time)
Daniel J. as per your request please find below sources that provide irrefutable proof that Canada's "violent crime rate" is over twice that of the United States, and also that your Alberta province is far more violent than my home state of Oregon by absolutely staggering margins as provided by another poster below. Alberta's murder rate is nearly 50% higher, and your violent crime rate "4 [FOUR] times" greater. Note: Oregon also has a sizeable urban population. These are statistically significant numbers I am sure reasonable people would conclude, what say you? If you go down a bit on this following link you will find some easy to read graphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States "To put the slight decreases in perspective, between 1962 and 2006, the violent crime rate in Canada, per 100,000, went from "221 to 951" (nine hundred fifty-one per 100,000), or a 300%+ increase. (See chart below "Crime rates in Canada 1962 - 2006")." The following links provide a breakdown of all crime in Canada, which includes all of Canada and a province breakdown. Simply look at the data related to the Alberta province (and others) and compare to Oregon, and the majority of all American states to see which place has the best overall quality when it comes to dealing with the crimes that truly impact most peoples lives. NOTE: Only the District of Columbia, a non-state, has a higher violent crime rate than Canada, all our 50 states are less. Certainly our overall national murder rate is greater, but statistically speaking it is a remote crime to the average citizen, than say violent crimes and property crimes which Canada is by far and away the leader. You shall quickly see that we here in America are doing much better that our northern neighbors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada/////http://www.thefreeradical.ca/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm
To be sure it can be a source of confusion when comparing different methodologies from different countries when measuring crime data, just the same, it is unmistakable the stark differences between America and Canada when looking at the kind of crimes that adversely impact quality of life, and in that regard the above sources clearly acknowledge Canada's lead in providing a far more criminally harmful environment than what your neighbors to the south experience. Maybe we can lend your law enforcement authorities a hand and help you improve yourselves in this area? Possibly you can send them down here to observe how we continue to improve the lives of our citizens, whereas some of your long term trends look rather dismal if you continue with failing to seek outside help? We Americans have a long established pattern of helping those in need, so please don't hesitate to ask.

Couple of points. You say “We Americans have a long established pattern of helping those in need, so please don't hesitate to ask.” I’ve checked your references: Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Argentina, Iran, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, South Vietnam et al. Thanks but no thanks.

You present Wikipedia as a source, so I’ll just quote it back to you. Here is the complete “United States” section from your link.

”Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US. Since violent crimes are a smaller fraction of all crimes, the difference between the two countries is less than the homicide rate might make it seem, and the overall rates are generally close (see Crime in the United States). [The opening sentence to that link is: "Crime in the United States is characterized by extremely high levels of violence and homicide compared to nearly all other developed countries"]”

”Furthermore, in recent years, the gap in violent crime rates between the United States and Canada has narrowed due to a precipitous drop in the violent crime rate in the U.S. For example, while the aggravated assault rate declined for most of 1990s in the U.S. and was 324 per 100,000 in 2000, the aggravated assault rate in Canada remained relatively steady throughout and was 143 per 100,000 in 2000. In other areas, the U.S. had a faster decline. For instance, whereas the murder rate in Canada declined by 36% between 1991 and 2004, the U.S. murder rate declined by 44%.”

”The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991 (2.69). It reached a post 1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[9] The attempted homicide rate has fallen at a faster rate than the homicide rate.”

”By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in 1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5). The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and 1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997 it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3. In 2004 the murder rate in the U.S. dipped below 6 per 100,000, for the first time since 1966.”

”Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.”

You say that the violent crime rate in Canada is double that of the U.S. Prove it.

Roger Miles November 30, 2009 11:27 am (Pacific time)
Daniel J. I just reviewed the links below dealing with crime rates in Canada and the United States. Murder is a component of violent crime statistics as are crimes like rape and aggravated assault. It is quite true that Canada's violent crime rate is twice that of ours in the states, that is obviously not stats you like, but it is true. I have been licensed to carry since the early 90's and have three seperate licenses for three states that I travel in regularly. Over the years I have familiarized myself with as many criminal databases I have been able to locate which helps me educate people I run into about actual facts about guns, in contrast to the waves of misinformation they are exposed to. The primary source, and there is only one, is our U.S. Justice Department. It is true what the below poster wrote, where people have "right to carry" laws the murder rate as well as the violent crime rate is significantly lower where that right is not exercised because of political interference. Canada is a lovely country, and I go there on a regular basis, but I feel far safer in the United States, and it is "twice" more likely I would be a victim of a violent crime in Canada. The data is irrefutable. I have found that those people who question why some people would own certain types of rifles, guns or any other weapon are usually quite uninformed about the thousands of gun laws we have and the low incidence of criminal behavior by law abiding citizens. Gun laws do not have much of an impact on criminals, just look and see who committs most of the gun crime. It's amazing how people from large urban areas like New York and Chicago have such little experience in gun facts and will often play into the hands of dishonest organizations who provide misleading data which they parrot with ignorant abandon. Again, the U.S. Justice Department is the one and only primary source. Daniel please note that you mentioned that your province has two million plus cities, well just like your urban crime problem, the urban environment is where the "majority" of our crime happens. Bottom line, when you add it all up and break it down, Canada has twice the violent crime rate. An old Oregon proverb: "When you see what you see, when you know what you know, then you can say what you mean."
Give me a verifiable, reputable link. I think you’re just making self-serving comments to serve your own malevalent pro-gun agenda. No matter where I go, the numbers always come up the same: US crime rate higher than Canada's. Show me your "irrefutable" numbers.
Here is a link that shows total crime in the U.S. at 80/1000 people and Canada at 75/1000 people. All you've done so far is present an unsubstantiated opinion. Here's the link to the stats I just quoted: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
Henry Clay Ruark November 30, 2009 9:46 am (Pacific time)
But most "classic" of all I've found is this one:
"Revolutionary Characters"; Gordon S. Woods; Penguin,2006; ISBN: 978-1-59420-093-9.
Pulitzer winner-repeating, with "Radicalism of the American Revolution" previously, joining several other award-winners.
This one is seminal for all others, so added to "Three for Free" list NOT to shortchange you !!
Read-and-learn, THEN comment from factually solid base...

Daniel Johnson November 30, 2009 10:32 am (Pacific time)
Here is a summary of Wills’s book:
"In his most original and important work on American history since "Lincoln at Gettysburg," Garry Wills examines Americans' skepticism and distrust of government, which he ascribes to our misunderstanding of the Founding Fathers and of much of our history. In "A Necessary Evil," Wills scrutinizes our anti-governmental attitudes -- from the revolt of the colonies against king and parliament (romanticized as a revolution against central authority in general) to the present justifications for tax revolts, gun owning, and term limits. Wills reveals the roots of distrust of government -- from mainstream to extremist -- from the Founding Fathers' rancorous disputes, through secession struggles and Civil War, to the present. He shows how we have handed down a number of myths that inflate or distort our ideas about what freedom means and that perpetuate our mistrust of government. "A Necessary Evil" debunks some of our fondest myths -- that minutemen, not the Continental Army, won the Revolutionary War; that checks and balances were designed to make our government inefficient; that the national ideal should be 'citizen-politicians'"
Henry Clay Ruark November 30, 2009 10:00 am (Pacific time)
For those distrusting our form of government, here us "the classic" on that side: "A Necessary Evil: History of American Distrust of Government"; Garry Wills;Simon and Schuster,1999;ISBN: 0684-84489-3. Another Pulitzer-winner, now widely used in college courses and corporate seminars. Tax revolg, GUN OWNERSHIP, other classic issues are here dissected from root to current times. To speak on these issues without reference to such work is to abuse First Amendment via what becomes political pandering when UNinformed or malignly distorted.
Henry Clay Ruark November 30, 2009 9:45 am (Pacific time)
But most "classic" of all I've found is this one: "Revolutionary Characters"; Gordon S. Woods; Penguin,2006; ISBN: 978-1-59420-093-9. Pulitzer winner-repeating, with "Radicalism of the American Revolution" previously, joining several other award-winners. This one is seminal for all others, so added to "Three for Free" list NOT to shortchange you !!
Henry Clay Ruark November 30, 2009 9:25 am (Pacific time)
“Three for Free” Reference-list data offeredfor fee is good deal. BUT here’s better one -- “THREE FOR FREE !” Solid factual background on Founders is easy to find with some books already recognized as classics, Here’s three of those for your easy and rapid recognition and reference: 1.“His Excellency: George Washington”; Joseph J. Ellis; Knopf, 2004;ISBN:1-4000-4031-0. His “Founding Brothers” won Pulitzer; “American Sphinz” won National Book Award in Non-Fiction. 2.“American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House”; Jon Meacham; Random House, 2009; ISBN: 978-0-8129-7346-0. Another Pulitzer winner;and NYTimes best-seller. 3.“Alexander Hamilton”; Ron Chernow; Penguin, 2004; ISBN: 1-59420-009-2. Exceptionally detailed, more than 800 pp. Jackson was first President from "the people". Every public library will have all three; used-like-new available from Amazon at phenomenal low cost, for full information, basic understandings of American roots.
Henry Clay Ruark November 30, 2009 8:29 am (Pacific time)
Daniel, S.and T.: "Comments" from S/T both show distortion/perversion of facts, malign or erroneous. That's typical for those who know not how or what to seek and what it means when they do find something. Proof is paramount,with easy misstatement of first sentence in WPedia as fair evidence of intent. Can hardly question what those simple words state. Beyond that, raw data-cited often misleads, as in D's ref. further re two Canadian city populations influencing the number-meanings. Skilled writer-observers know what and how to interpret with care and integrity for true meanings when combined --that is heart (and soul !) of professional writing. (Also known as seeing the forest rather than single or multiple trees !) Re 2nd Amendment, longtime study (FIFTY Years !) of most Founders/their dialog in FEDERALIST; current biogs. of leaders; 50-yr. contact with operational field as reporter, with both police and court experience --all tell me D's commonsense re "if guns are available they will be used, by whomever",is truthful reflection. (Sorry, can't ID quote, paraphrased from specia study.) Thus gun-levels demand full control, possible without any damage to what Founders set up for us as foundation in much earlier age --to protect their militia arms. New/tech/types ONLY MULTIPLY this necessity; WHY should ordinary citizen need AK-47 ? (What sources, books, articles and special reports can S/T cite ? My melting-away files still fill two full drawers; book list on Founders over 50 items; mentioned here for comparison and contrast !) Similar control at work in other areas, as demanded, for multiple relevant reasons. See previous Op Eds; or full list of items available on full ID with working phone to Editor; small fee: $25.) Those who ignore flat-facts find their statements falling flat on face -that's simple rule of reason and rationality for all to learn.
stephen November 29, 2009 9:20 pm (Pacific time)
Daniel: if you would research further, you would see that guns are not the problem. It is the breakdown of society in both our countries.
This breakdown comes from elite leaders who want control wihtout care of the people. Thus, the second ammendment. Getting it yet? The forefathers KNEW THIS!
As mentioned, the leaders have already taken away your right to defend yourself. They dont care about Canada. But the U.S? Different story. That is why they are sending our national guard overseas (against the law by the way), and signing treaties with other countries, such as canada, as their defense, because they know the National Guard will not go along with their plans. And when the U.S. falls, which it will, canada will come tumbling after. It is in our best interest, to quit fighiting over what country we are living in, and open our thoughts and research to whom is causing this.
In the U.S., 70% of the homicides are by firearm. Reduce the presence of guns and homicides come down. (There would be four Lakeland, Wa. cops still on duty for sure.) Show me the flaws in that argument.

No one is taking away the guns of Canadians. It’s a simple fact that Canadians, except in rural areas where rifles and shotguns (not handguns) serve practical purposes, don’t want guns and have never wanted guns.
I’ve posed this question several times and no one has addressed it. If the FF had known about the future of AK-47s, automatic pistols, Saturday Night Specials, etc., would they have written the SA as they did? I seriously doubt it. They wrote it in an environment of muskets and flintlock pistols.
Daniel Johnson November 29, 2009 5:41 pm (Pacific time)
Okay, Thomas, you’ve focussed on violent crime and quote the Wikipedia article. Here is the first sentence under the heading United States: “Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case.” This refutes your statement that "In fact Canada's violent crime rate is over twice the amount America's".
You suggest that the crime rate in Oregon is lower overall than Alberta. This wouldn’t surprise me. The two have similar populations, but Alberta has two, million plus cities. Note, however, that just this morning, four Lakeland, Wa. cops were gunned down in a restaurant (not knifed down or clubbed down or beaten down). The last sentence in the U.S. subsection is: "Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada."

Believing it makes them safer, the American attachment to guns is not rational.
You said that your research was "quite a wake-up call." For you perhaps. Do you acknowledge that? Your rebuttal to either sentence quoted?

Thomas November 29, 2009 1:47 pm (Pacific time)
I hope everyone had a pleasant Thanksgiving celebration. Daniel Johnson I have been reviewing crime rates both here and in Canada, the differences are quite significant and it's been quite a wake-up call. Recently several of my associates were discussing current crime rates here in Oregon and frankly we are all quite concerned with what we see as a growing problem, both in violent crimes and in property crimes. For example back in the day (pre-1965), if someone stole a car it was prosecuted as Grand Theft and kids went to "reform school" and adults would go to prison. There were sanctions for criminal behavior and they had some real bite. Crime was pretty low back in the day. Still compared to many other areas the crime here isn't as bad, but still we build more prisons. Of course a lot of incarceration is drug-related and we need to revisit many of our drug laws. Oregon has a 2009 population of approx. 3,750,000 and your province, Alberta, from my research has a population of 3,700,000. Pretty similar population size. Daniel Johnson your murder rate in Alberta is around "50%" higher than Oregon's; your violent crime rate is nearly "4 times" ours, and your property crime rate is also way above ours by a significant margin. As bad as we complain about crime here in Oregon, your Canadian crime data (below) makes Alberta sound like a war zone. If you feel safe there, the data shows we here in Oregon and literally all areas here in the states we label red areas, are "factually" far safer than you in Alberta, and also all of your urban communities in all of Canada. In fact Canada's violent crime rate is over twice the amount America's. We have over 300 million guns owned by private citizens in the states and still we have a lower violent crime rate than your country. In our large cities where we have right to carry laws, for example in Florida and Texas (along Mexican border, like El Paso) their murder rates are 1/10th that of cities like Baltimore and Washington DC, and even below your Alberta Province. The 2nd Amendment works when it is not messed with by the gun grabbers coupled with their misleading agenda. Also would you like comparative info on healthcare data between our two countries? I have plenty of well sourced data that might enlighten you and others. Are you familiar with the "10 Most Important Recent Medical Innovations" that are used to literally save millions of lives every year all around the world? Here is a link and please note where these innovations came from (not Canada), In fact this link will clear up many misconceptions about health care in Canada. I would be interested in your response for this info is significant info: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 And here is a link that breaks down Canada's crime statistics:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada
Henry Clay Ruark November 29, 2009 11:21 am (Pacific time)
Friend Daniel: No question re "Gov.t IS the problem !" --been bitterly protesting that myth ever since first-uttered. WHAT remains when government is removed is and has been forever-and-only rule of the rich and powerful few over the millions creating the wealth by most/essential ingredient - hard daily effort at all levels in every aspect of life. Resurrection and emergence in China, India now seen very srongly as triggered in part by complex intra-workings set off by U.S. millions so misled and manipulations arising from 3-TRILLION U.S.debt then begun --more than all/combined by prior administrations. So happens heavy-load of much broader, more extensive information-flow began in same formative years, overwhelming now for so many here, creating frustration,hopelessness,anger and resulting in heavy loss of citizen participation and understandings demanded for democratic continuation. We need to "see the whole forest, not the individual trees" to plan and pursue any possible lumbering we can now launch to clear away the jungle we now face and open up the "New Land" we can still contrive for the 21st Century.
stephen November 28, 2009 9:33 pm (Pacific time)
Daniel: you never answered my last question. DID THE LINK WORK????? Did you know about this? Simple question with NO answer. I am waiting.
Yes, the link worked. I’m going to explore the idea a bit.
Henry Clay Ruark November 28, 2009 5:45 pm (Pacific time)
Daniel:
Do believe you right on the mark, as far as details now evident go. BUT couple times I happened to encounter a bully, always and finally somebody outbeat him...and we sure do not want that to happen, with Big Bang now an inevitable threat, and too many bullies with that big stick...So must return to sameold solution saving nation in past crises of historic proportions as in GWashington, Lincoln, FDR-times, per your Churchill: "American people always get it right...but they insist on trying everything else first".
If fog continues to clear here in Seaside, may venture a bit further, but ascared to do anymore this-shot...Do believe we can return-to-basics and rebuild from there,having perhaps learned a bit over 250 years, with solid base perhaps better than any other nation for 21st Century flourishing of what Founders intended.

IF we do NOT do so --watch out ! One can only contemplate with horror what will be sure to follow, if we continue as we have since the 80s, with further emphasis on "Gov't. IS the problem !" rather than any real understanding of its role as in all history --so far.
Hank: I disagree that the govt is the problem. The problem is the people who choose the govt, then fail to monitor it.

And I think it's too late to rebuild. Other nations like China and India and even the EEC are not going to sit back and let the American people dominate the world again after showing so decisively that they are unable to manage themselves, let alone a larger world. So much for American exceptionalism. Americans are going to have to realize that they are just one nation among many on the planet.

Henry Clay Ruark November 28, 2009 3:32 pm (Pacific time)
Lyle: Speaking of education, the word is laid --not layed !; when applied to the Supremes, one needs to be precise and correct, as well as for other points.

Re restofyours, the tone is unrelievedly arrogant, sir: demanding, incorrect on major issues and points; and seeks inescapably both conclusions and consequences we have no right to expect from writer courageous enough to lay out (ck sp. !) major points with which most persons, capable of solid judgment on solid bases, find themselves forced to agree, as do I.
Next question, to both of you: What should we, MUST we, now do to correct these large grievous misapprehensions and misapplications of Founder insight and prescience ?
It is only fair, Lyle, that if you disagree so adamantly you then assess the true extent and consequences of what you DO see, and tell us how you think it should be remedied. (NOT holding-breath, you understand...)

Friend Daniel, hope you will now undertake to produce what is surely an unavoidable, inevitable and very highly consequential third-parter, again building insightful, courageous list of steps we can consider from down here, while still able to operate at some remaining level of major achievement.

OR should we all simply pack up and head up your way ? Can we count on welcome if we do ?

Hank: I appreciate the confidence you have in a third parter but I can’t imagine where I would go with it. America, as a nation, has created so many enemies, engendered so much ill will, violated so much trust over the last half century that it’s like a bully in the school yard. All you can do is wait and hope that he grows up. It’s the same with America. Time to let go of the 18th century and move on. As for the Second Amendment, it made sense in the 18th century, but no longer. If the FF had known about the future AK-47s, automatic weapons, and the whole range of killing machines the NRA promotes, would the SA have been written as it was? I seriously doubt it. I challenge you and Lyle (and anyone else who wants to pitch in) to respond to that question. That IMHO is one of the first things to look at. The incivility of American society.

“It’s an ugly time in America,” reports Judith Warner in the Thanksgiving Day NYT. “Unemployment, mortgage defaults and credit card interest rates are all on the rise, and they’re taking a pretty big personal, and interpersonal, toll. According to a new report from the American Psychological Association, 75 percent of American adults report experiencing moderate-to-high levels of stress, mostly about money, and the most frequent symptom of that stress is irritability and anger.”
Lyle November 28, 2009 9:28 am (Pacific time)
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling clearly layed out the meaning of America's 2nd Amendment (nothing new to the vast majority of us), so if some people are confused then maybe they just listen to other people who are confused or they intentionally pursue a misleading agenda, the latter is the usual case. These people are easy to spot, usually very thin-skinned, myopic, poorly schooled and narcissistic. We do have radical people in some urban locations who are challenging the recent court ruling, but they will lose in the fullness of time, as will all those who attempt to alter the courts clear interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Please note the Bill of Rights deals with inalienable individual rights not government provided privileges. Does the writer have any academic credentials dealing with American history? Or just basing info on a group of malcontent writers who also have limited knowledge of America, our history, our mores, values and folkways? Considering the high violent and property crime rates in Canada (much higher than in America, will provide links if requested), no doubt from the statitistical model the U.S. has for gun ownership and the lower crime rates that comes with gun ownership, Canada could benefit from emulating us in this regard, as Candadian culture does in most everything else. Canada is an extrention of American culture. Just ask Alex Trebek. As we "do", generally Canada follows, albeit slower and not as adequate as they should, except for your government structure, which does cause hinderance to you people's welfare in my opinion. We have no royalty sitting as a head of state, literally or figuratively as Canada does (Queen Elizabeth is Canada's head of state), we find that notion anathama. Our Founders certainly had an excellent grasp of history which gave them an uncanny insight into the future. It appears those who question their genius, simply do not understand their environment, maybe that's why they project such unhappiness and overall confusion?
Lyle: You’re trying to make it sound as if you speak for all or even most Americans. This is not the case. I stand by what John Ralston Saul said, that American culture is still so locked into the 18th century that it's impossible (certainly very challenging, mentally) to logically see and deal with the contradictions. Out of all the nations influenced by the Enlightenment, America is the only nation that hasn’t moved on. You may not have heard the news, but King George is dead!

You talk about people being unschooled and unable to "understand" the Second Amendment. Are you sufficiently schooled to be able to explain how the Enlightenment period formed the U.S. into what it is today including that Second Amendement? That's the primary reason I don't try to debate people with fixed views like yourself--you wouldn't understand what I am talking about sufficiently in order to frame an argument in terms of what I present. You would just respond with an ad hominem argument dismissing me as a "malcontent" writer.

Your statement that Canada is an extension of the U.S., only shows your standard American ignorance and close-minded American arrogance (which is what Saul was referencing). Canada is distinct in many ways and we intend to stay that way, but history shows that America is a respecter of other national sovereignties only when it suits itself. (If you haven't read Stephen Kinzer's book Overthrow, then read it and come back and we can pick up the thread of discussion.) But for us there is no value in our Canadian culture, to invading other nations and overthrowing governments just because we don't like them, or more to the point, that they have something that America wants. I get the impression from you that if America invaded Canada to gain access to our freshwater and oil, that you would approve. After all, as an extension of America, it belongs to you, anyway.

Here's something to think about. The official motto of the U.S. is "In God We Trust. What if God doesn't trust you? That would be a pickle. By the way, the Founding Fathers did not believe in the same God referenced in the motto. They were Deists. Look it up.

I remember Somalia in the early 1990's. Now if any nation on Earth needed American intervention, Somalia was it. But the going got tough, and the Americans turned tail and ran using the limited UN mandate as an excuse, instead of, for once, doing what was right. Somalia was, and continues to be, a human rights hellhole.

One last point. You say you can provide links to prove that Canada is more violent. The table I presented in Part 1 were WHO figures from 2008: U.S. homicide rate 5.8/100,000; Canada 1.83/100,000. You have more authoritative figures?
stephen November 26, 2009 7:21 pm (Pacific time)
Lets look into this Daniel..We may, be opening a can of worms if my link did not work. Or maybe I did not post it properly. I am going to do it again. If it still does not work, type your search engine the following "north american military agreement signed by the U.S. and Canada" I am on the edge of my seat here! http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaandaid=8551
stephen November 26, 2009 6:58 pm (Pacific time)
Tel Aviv is Israel. A zionist regime. Same as the Rothchilds/Rockefellers, and the bankers I speak of. Khazars from long ago, that were kicked out of many countries and about to be dealt with here in the U.S. They own, in one way or another, most of those in our government and all of our media Daniel. You think you have some type of soveriegnty over the queen of England, but you dont. Same as us. Countries such as China, Russian, India, Brazil, Venezuela, and possibly the new regime of Japan have now learned who they are. Argentina, and Iceland SURELY know who they are. Many in the U.S. are learning. Between articles such as Gordons, and "climatgate" and audit the fed are on the forefront. We are in for an interesting couple of years. You are right about one thing tho, the U.S. is about to experience something it is not ready for. There is NOTHING that can stop the total economic collapse at this time. I am just trying to expose the ones responsible. I will post the link again..if it does not work, we may have MUCH more to talk about huh? Please let me know,I am interested, and I really want you to read it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8551

Link still doesn’t work. I can get to the site. Give me some keywords or a title I can search on.

The & is auto swapped to (and) the word and as the & has special meaning that could be misused. I fixed this link to work properly Matt
stephen November 26, 2009 5:57 pm (Pacific time)
Sorry if I seemed condescending I did not mean to. I simply was asking you questions, . I dont watch tv, I dont have one. I dont read wikipedia either. I was just hoping to have open communication with you. I thought maybe we would start by seeing if you knew about the article I linked to you. Sorry I upset you, was just asking questions. This will now be the third time I asked, did you know about the link I sent you?? I dont care what wikipedia says, not reliable. I search deeply before I make decisions. Oh, by the way, check out Gordon Duff's article just posted! Its great! Again, my apologies if I came off condescending. Thank you for noting the interntional ratings table..it comes from Tel Aviv..I rest my case...lol
The link you supplied doesn’t work. I don’t have a TV either, but it doesn’t prevent me from being well informed. And I don’t “read” Wikipedia. I just use it as an auxiliary source. What does Tel Aviv have to do with anything?
Stephen November 26, 2009 5:00 pm (Pacific time)
Daniel: millions of us in the U.S. know exactly what the 2nd ammendment means. I would not expect you to understand. In regards to voting? I totally agree with you. But dont blame it on the Constitution, blame it on the bankers your motherland sent here to buy up all the media, and bribe our government. I am curious tho, if you have a moment, did you know about the link I sent you? Did you know about this happening? I am curious to what you have access to in regards to current events. From my understanding, Canada media is worse than the U.S media in regards to truth. Just wondering, if you have time. thanks.
Do you need glasses, Stephen? Look again, at the International Rankings table where Reporters without borders gives Canada a Press Freedom Index of 19 and the U.S. 20! I think you rely too much on Fox for your opinions. I also resent your condescending attitude.
Here is the opening paragraph to the Wikipedia article. If there were any clarity on the Second Amendment, there would not be the issue there is around gun control.
"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The American Bar Association has noted that there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution." (italics added)
Henry Ruark November 26, 2009 10:32 am (Pacific time)
Friend Daniel:
Yr 2nd-shot (!) leads me to observe that "Plumbing and politics share an inescapable vital characteristic -they both work best when they do not leak."

Your admiration for the statistical serves well hiding the leaks, some even beyond those friend Ersun states so admirably, too.

IF we were still existent only by luck in the early years of War II, it is only fair to state that both your Canada AND Britain now exist only because of that fortunate outcome of the true American exceptionalism --the Marshall Plan-- which is fact and not fancy, provable and also checkable in many famous references as choosable as those you cite here.

Without that, where would YOU, Canada, Britain et al, now be ? Could there ever have been the renaissance in some of those nations that you so feelingly describe herein ?
Do you now contend that our seeming-collapse has occurred only from serious events ever since that testing-time for all "exceptionalism" ?

But thank you for detailed statement of your own stance on "the NOW, now".
NOW we can get on with our test-of-pipes surely demanded of us all in these early years of the still-new 21st Century.

Whether or not we can take your mirroring as a true reflection from our (fearful ?? !!)neighbor to the North or not, or as the desperately needed "million-pixel image of the future" we all need so desperately, is another story, yet to come for many of us.

"moresoon" (old wireservice content-marker for hardpressed transmitting technician) from Seaside when the fog clears away here,generated not only by yours but transformative events underway "in the good old USA !"

Need I point to Nov. 11 as perhaps the potent proof of our millions now more aware than ever before ?
SO must propose simply more patience, as this, our "barely mature,no-longer-child nation" still continues the Founders' "experiment in democracy" ?

Give us six centuries, as in each of the other nations you do not dissect and denigrate by comparison-NOW, and then let's count the cards and the citizen-rights,as well as only the dollars and that obviously distorting weight.
Thank you, Hank, for taking the time to make a comment. Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree, which is fine by me.
stephen November 26, 2009 10:54 am (Pacific time)
Daniel: I urge you to study what the 2nd ammendment means and why it was written. And it is not written in stone, ammendments can be made via voting. side note: I am nervous about the U.S. Government as much as you are. Canada is doing better economically because they did not support the Revolutionary War. After your motherland lost the war militarily, they brought in very rich bankers to take over America. Because of the strength of the Constitution, the U.S. would have to be totally devastated, manipulated, brainwashed, dumbdowned, etc. (banks are more dangerous than standing armies)It has taken them 200 years to get this far, and it is endgame time. Yes, the politicians took the bribes from the bankers that came from your motherland, but dont blame the American people. Not sure if you know about this article linked below, (from what I hear, Canada's blackout of honest open media is worst than the U.S.), but, it seems as tho very soon, we might be getting a close up view, just how good the canadian military is.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaandaid=8551
Stephen: What a bunch of nonsense. No one knows what the second amendment means. It was so sloppily written that it is open to multiple interpretations. I'm not impressed by your Founding Fathers. Change it through voting? I'll learn how to fly, first. Motherland? You sound like a feminist Nazi.
Ersun Warncke November 25, 2009 10:13 pm (Pacific time)
Daniel, thank you for your additional vigorous critique of "American" ideology. Your facts are demonstrative, but I would like to add a few additional points. Your comparisons of U.S. global power show a decline between the end of WWII, and present, which is somewhat misleading, due to the fact that the U.S. was in a unique position, with Canada, of not having its industrial base destroyed after the war. It is right, proper, and inevitable that the U.S. should not hold such a disproportionate share of the global economy. What you call decline, in economic terms, I would call progress, because that relative decline is in large part due to other countries rebuilding and doing a better job. You also do not consider the impact of the great wars generally, which was enormous and devastating for all of humanity. The aftermath of WWII is probably one of the most important factors in the current "American" condition. The problem, as witnessed by Britain, Russia (USSR), and the U.S. is that "victory" teaches no lessons. Defeat is a painful but ultimately rewarding learning process. Witness Germany and Japan having two of the most productive and peaceful societies on earth. Germany and Japan have been bolstered by the fact that they have rejected military aggression, which happens to save a lot of money, and allow their societies to function on a productive basis. Other countries have followed the same path to a greater or lesser extent, but across the board, the countries with the highest standards of living have the lowest military expenditures. "Americans" unfortunately continue to be duped into believing that the money pit of military aggression and empire is in their best interests, which it certainly is not. I think this is in large part due to the post war experience. Because the perceived highpoint of the "American" experience was achieved through warfare, there is a strong tendency to believe that more warfare will yield similar results. This is incorrect, and will require some painful defeat related education, but that is hardly anything new. Uncountable numbers of societies with all kinds of governments have gone through the same process. Some of the particular features of America are certainly due to its form of government, but I think that much of what you criticize about the "American" ideology has far more to do with the impacts of the wars, which are still playing out. On a final note, I would add that in my view the biggest problem with the "American" ideology is that it exists. Nationalism is an irrational ideology that has only ever been spread for nefarious purposes. The fact that nationalism comes at the expense of true self-identity, cultural identity, and human identity inevitably means that those who blindly adhere to such an ideology will be constrained to an immature level of development.
Thank you, Ersun. In my lifetime of experience, I have never seen Americans act in their own best interest but only in the interests of a kakistocracy (rule by the worst). This has encouraged the extreme polarization of American society today. It's going to be difficult to impossible for America to make any progress in the next few years when broad agreement of what "progress" means or looks like is not forthcoming.
[Return to Top]
©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.

The Canadian Comparison: Speaking Truth to U.S. Power

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News