Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
For those who have attempted to defend the Canadian "human rights commissions" and their appalling and unjust hate speech codes, please read this article. Here's one of the statements made by Mark Steyn that has made him the target of the BC Human Rights Commission:
Signora Fallaci then moves on to the livelier examples of contemporary Islam -- for example, Ayatollah Khomeini's "Blue Book" and its helpful advice on romantic matters: "If a man marries a minor who has reached the age of nine and if during the defloration he immediately breaks the hymen, he cannot enjoy her any longer." I'll say. I know it always ruins my evening.
A quote - an accurate quote - from a prominent Muslim leader is enough to get you brought up on hate speech charges. Absolutely indefensible.
Politics
Comments
You might want to stay out of Canada for a while Ed. You're now on the record quoting a known hate monger.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 27, 2008 10:31 AM
BS. Any hate speech complaints should be fired straight at the source of these quotes, not at a reporter who drew attention to them...
...unless drawing attention to hate speech is itself a crime now, in which case the next complaint would be against the commission itself, no?
Posted by: Jason Failes | May 27, 2008 10:49 AM
I'm confused by the mechanics described in that quote.
Posted by: tincture | May 27, 2008 10:52 AM
I'm confused by the mechanics described in that quote.
Right there with ya tincture. Beside the issue of the dispicable advocacy of intercourse with a child is there a way to "deflower" a nine year old that wouldn't "immediately" break her hymen?
Posted by: Lance | May 27, 2008 11:18 AM
I am a proud Canadian and British Columbian. But I have felt that our hate speech laws are off the rails. I don't accept the assumption that the State should be punishing citizens for having unsavoury opinions.
Posted by: Cheddar | May 27, 2008 11:28 AM
Watching the video linked to in the blog post is painful. The three students filing the complaint don't have a good argument.
I'm ashamed to be Canadian at this point. I don't like Mark Steyn all that much, but the three students don't have a case.
Posted by: Geoff Wozniak | May 27, 2008 11:50 AM
hmm, sounds like some Canadians need to vote in some new politicians and get these laws changed and these bureaucrats back on the leash.
Posted by: Julian | May 27, 2008 11:56 AM
There's no need to be ashamed to be Canadian. Though I am a staunch critic of the "human rights commissions" and their Orwellian mission, let's not forget that Canada is a lot more enlightened and rational about a great many things than my country is. We could pick any one thing to criticize about any nation and make it look like something shameful.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 27, 2008 12:14 PM
I thought Allah preferred virgin suicide bombers? Or am I confusing Him with the Volcano God again?
Posted by: kehrsam | May 27, 2008 12:32 PM
I suspect that Ayatollah Khomeini is saying that foreplay is required. Thus we see the compassionate side of Islam: sex with nine year old girls is okay, but you have to be gentle.
Posted by: Bill Poser | May 27, 2008 12:40 PM
As I naturally do when asked a question, I tried to come up with an answer. After a few minutes of dispassionate contemplation the reality of what I was visualizing hit me. Now I feel dirty and a bit nauseous. So I'll just say, yes there is, and go puke in the bathroom. Excuse me.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 27, 2008 12:44 PM
Abby: Just as a visual aid, might I suggest that given the relatively poor nutrition afforded daughters in Muslim societies, the girls may be nine, but they look seven. I hope that helps.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 27, 2008 12:53 PM
Do they have a name for what's wrong with you kehrsam?
/teasing
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 27, 2008 1:20 PM
"...let's not forget that Canada is a lot more enlightened and rational about a great many things than my country is."
Uh, not to start a cross border jingoism-fest but care to elaborate? Canada has the luxury of being internationally irrelevant and largely monochromatic when it comes to culture. This gives the illusion of social "enlightenment".
Posted by: Lance | May 27, 2008 2:19 PM
the hell Lance?? "largely monochromatic"? Ok, let's take a walk down Yonge Street in Toronto and you can repeat that to me... it'd be funny! (to me at least)
The last Walmart I was in made me and my sister laugh 'cause it was selling Punjabi suits and bollywood films in with everything else (this may be area specific, I don't patronize walmart if I can help it).
And as for internationally irrelevant, good to see you still support the allies you left high and dry in Afghanistan who are still there trying to make a go of if in that war-torn land. Just because they work through internationally recognized bodies and court systems (who is president of the International Criminal Court again?) instead of going alone all the time it doesn't mean they are internationally irrelevant.
Honestly, I'd be glad to know what you're basing your statements on ... please elaborate
Posted by: kodiak | May 27, 2008 2:40 PM
Is this the same Lance that shows up over at Deltoid all the time? If so, it's interesting to see how comprehensively wrong someone can be. A new set of errors for every topic.
Posted by: Lars | May 27, 2008 2:46 PM
The B.C. Human Rights Commission ceased to exist in 2002. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal continued to exist. Prior to 2002 a complainant would file a complaint with the Commission and the Commission would then bring the complaint to the Tribunal and have conduct of the file.
With the dissolution of the Commission the Tribunal became a direct access quasi-judicial body. Complainants to the Tribunal provide their own lawyers, or act for themselves. Given the fact that Macleans is a national publication, all 10 provinces and the federal government have a Human Rights Tribunal, and that BC is the only jurisdiction with direct access to the Tribunal, you might conclude that the complainants choose to file in BC knowing that the Human Rights Commission's in other jurisdictions would refuse to take on this case.
Posted by: Bob Smith | May 27, 2008 3:31 PM
"If a man marries a minor who has reached the age of nine and if during the defloration, . . ."
AFAIK Islam, at least the Sunni variety, forbids sexual relations until the bride reaches puberty, regardless of her age. If the Qur'an mentions it, I can't find it, and the hadith below is the only one even remotely apparently apposite. Presumbably Khomeini is relying on some other authority.
Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 86, Number 101:
" . . . If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin . . . and then she attains the age of puberty and agrees to marry him . . . , he may consummate his marriage."
Posted by: JakeR | May 27, 2008 4:58 PM
Keep your touques on, eh? Here are a few facts for you Hosers.
Canadian demographics 86% white folks 14 % ALL other minorities.
Yeah you're a regular international village up there.
Canadian contribution to NATO defense spending 1.45%, US contribution 50.83%.
Way to pull your weight. I feel so much safer knowing you are making that whopping 1% contribution.
You may have noticed that you don't need a border patrol to keep out Americans seeking a better life in Canada. Still, you seem like nice boring neighbors until you start copping an attitude.
What is with you knucks ripping on the US anyway? Typical whiny Canadian jealousy. Don't make us come up there.
Posted by: Lance | May 27, 2008 6:06 PM
Let's do a bit of digging at StatsCan shall we?
Pulling ethnic origin from the last census gives:
(First number include all people who included that origin, second is for people who listed only that origin. Actual totals will lie between these two figures.)
Aboriginal 1,678,235 630,425
Caribbean 578,695 335,230
Latin, Central and
South American 360,235 196,670
African 421,185 251,060
Arab 470,580 315,995
West Asian 302,555 223,030
South Asian 1,316,770 1,089,100
East and Southeast Asian 2,212,340 1,854,090
Total 7,340,595 4,895,600
Total population - 31,241,030
% Non-white: 23.5% 15.7%
Note that this does _not_ include non-white Europeans[1], or people who simply identify as Canadians, (almost six million, a significant number of which are non-white). That so-called whites are still the majority nationally is nothing more than an artifact of the way things were at the times of mass immigration.
Canada also has extreme cases, such as Toronto, where there are quite literally people from everywhere on Earth[2].
As was said: You have an open invitation to come up here to Toronto and see things for yourself.
[1] Traditionally, "white" meant Germanic, Nordic, Gaulish, and possibly Celtic. It did not include people from the Mediterranean nor Slavs. Things have reached the point in Canada that no one cares about that distinction anymore, and in places like Toronto this lack of caring has been steadily spreading to all ethnicities.
[2] The U of T has a couple antarctic researchers, so even that is covered as far as it can go.
Posted by: Rick Pikul | May 27, 2008 6:47 PM
Even outside of the big cities Canada is a lot more diverse than you might think. I live in Prince George, BC, the "capital" of northern British Columbia. Prince George is about 10% aboriginal, 5% Sikh (we have TWO Sikh temples), 1% Chinese. A large percentage of the students at the University of Northern BC are Chinese or Korean.
Posted by: Bill Poser | May 27, 2008 7:08 PM
The numbers I quoted were from Wikipedia based on 2006 census numbers. Blacks account for 2.6%, and Latinos 1%. The rest are largely "south Asians" and "Chinese". Aboriginal peoples account for 6% and largely live in very geographically disparate regions of the country.
So you have major population centers dominated by white Canadians of European ancestry with a sprinkling of other ethnicities here and there. Not exactly a multi-cultural utopia.
So now people that are of Slavic or other non Anglo-Saxon origin aren't "white", sheesh! Talk about desperation to be "ethnic". I find it amusing that Rick Pikul follows statistics that divide people into ever finer and sillier groups with the words "Things have reached the point in Canada that no one cares about that distinction anymore..."
Really no one cares yet you parse the many shades of "white" and have at the ready numbers to show Canadian "diversity"? What a bunch of phony multi-cultural wannabes.
Look my mother is Icelandic and my wife is Ethiopian so you knucks are not going to out "diverse" this American family. The difference is we don't wear it like a badge trying to look down our noses at other countries.
I notice no one has addresses the "internationally irrelevant" remark. There was that Montreal Protocol. Oh yeah, that was crap never mind.
Hey, seriously Canada is a fine place to live. Besides a few places like Toronto and Quebec City you would think you were in the suburban Milwaukie most of the time, just wearing a lot more clothes and with a lot less to do.
As far as French Canadians are concerned Triumph the insult comic dog said it best. "You're French-Canadian, yes? So you're obnoxious and dull."
I keed! I keed!
Posted by: Lance | May 27, 2008 8:47 PM
Lance -
Uh, not to start a cross border jingoism-fest but care to elaborate?
First, it's very clear that starting a cross border jingoism-fest is exactly what you're doing. But to elaborate;
If I was a Canadian, living in Canada, I could actually see a doctor. If I were living in Canada and happened to have a partner of the same sex, it wouldn't matter nearly as much as it does here. Too, if I were Canadian I wouldn't be dodging fucking bullets walking down the street. Oh, and the trash - it would be lovely to walk down the street without finding all sorts of foul trash everywhere. And education, can't forget the notion that my kids could get a decent education.
But I am an American. So I only see a doctor when somethings gotten really wrong. I am dodging bullets in the street. My son actually found a used catheter on the ground once - also has found many used condoms (among many other minor horrors). I've found hypos and all sorts of nastiness. And we are homeschooling our oldest, because the local public schools don't offer much to kids with ADHD.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 27, 2008 11:13 PM
@ Lance "...let's not forget that Canada is a lot more enlightened and rational about a great many things than my country is."
**Duh, not to start a cross border jingoism-fest but care to elaborate? Canada has the luxury of being internationally irrelevant and largely monochromatic when it comes to culture. This gives the illusion of social "enlightenment".**
Somethings got your knickers in a knot Lance. Your comment after the assertion was definitely intended to start a war of who's better than whom, and not relevant to the assertion itself. Obviously you have an inferiority complex or you wouldn't have bothered. Good heavens!! Someone suggests that the lowly Canadians might be more enlightened than the great Americans about some things?? How could this be possible?!
And funnier still, how do you come to the conclusion that the illusion of social enlightenment is obtained by being internationally irrelevant and largely monochromatic?
There is something called 'the big city syndrome' and it applies to more than just cities. It works this way: Small town people get comfortable in a slower easier pace. They tend to be more friendly because they see there neighbours more and talk to them more. You rub elbows with the mayor and the owner of the Wallmart franchise while playing golf or have a Timmies. Small town folk tend to look at city people like they're ignorant and arrogant asses, and the city folk tend to be that way because, though they are within a larger population base, they actually see less familiar faces in a day, tend only to mix with the cogs in the machine they have accidentally come into contact with at work, and are more aggressive to get what they want and to be heard amidst the din of a larger population. And this works with any population base. Yellowknifers think of Edmontonians this way, who think of Torontarians this way... And many Canadians look at the big bad US of A to the south with similar feelings. Quite frankly, what it is is the small town folk have that feeling of inferiority sometimes... but then along comes some jackass who makes the big city people look really stupid.
Regards
Dave
Posted by: Dave | May 27, 2008 11:40 PM
Yep, Toronto is so white dominated that you would never notice that there is no ethnic group in the majority any more, (it crossed over a couple years ago).
As for a sprinkling, when a low estimate give you 1/5 you are well beyond a sprinkling. In fact, you are well above the population of most provinces. Now perhaps you might want to learn a bit of history and see how people from Eastern and Southern Europe were treated. It might also surprise you to learn that it is possible for there to be no issue with ones ethnic background, while still maintaining it as part of your identity.
Now take another look at those numbers I posted, you might note than none of them include anything currently considered white. (I apologize for Scienceblogs 'cleaning up' the whitespace.) Also go back and actually read the thread, you will note that the one who made diversity and the lack thereof was you. Saying that you weren't using it to try and look down your nose is simply dishonest.
(BTW: Go look up the levels of atmospheric CFCs sometime, and check out just who's been stopping the Taliban from reprising their first invasion of Afghanistan.)
Posted by: Rick Pikul | May 27, 2008 11:46 PM
Lance:
Citations, plzthx. (Speaking as an American).
Also, even according to your numbers:
Canada's GDP: $1,274,000,000
US GDP: $13,543,000,000
Canada's GDP as a percentage of US's GDP: 9.4%
Canada's contribution to NATO defense spending as a percentage of US contribution, according to Lance's UNSOURCED figures: 2.8%
Canada's contribution to NATO defense spending relative to its GDP as a percentage of US contribution relative to its GDP: 29.78%
A little lopsided, but far less so than Lance wants to pretend.
DuWayne: You're wasting your breath trying to sell someone like Lance on the value of education.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 28, 2008 12:02 AM
Lance writes:
Sorry that our contribution to Afghanistan, including the deaths of our 83 soldiers, is so trivial and unappreciated. Though your nation asked for our help, feel free to take our place if we're not living up to you expectations. By all means, all our Americans friends are invited up here for a brewski anytime. But Lance, you may want to sober up or get back on your meds first. You don't sound like you're in shape to drive.Posted by: Ex-drone | May 28, 2008 12:25 AM
"Obviously you have an inferiority complex..."
Yeah the most powerful dynamic nation on the face of the earth, maybe in history, feels inferior to Canada.
That was a joke right?
Posted by: Lance | May 28, 2008 9:10 AM
Nice to see that Lance is spreading his usual mixture of ignorance and bile beyond propounding conspiracy theories about how global warming is a Commie Plot.
Posted by: Ian Gould | May 28, 2008 10:06 AM
I second the question about sources, and I'd also like to point out that Lance is focusing in on international entities that the US also commits to. A worthwhile attempt at getting a comparison, but not a worthwhile attempt at getting the whole picture. To do that you'd have to look at other international agencies/missions that the US supports and Canada doesn't and then at the ones Canada supports and the US doesn't and *then* you'd have to break it down per capita or by GDP (as someone helpfully did above).
I don't have time to do that research, but I'd be suprised if it came out totally lopsided when you factor in Canadian UN missions and the international criminal courts.
It's interesting that "internationally relevant" to Lance appears to mean only force of arms. Surely there's more to be said about being internationally relevant on an international aid basis and diplomatic basis as well (which admittedly is much harder to set a metric to).
Posted by: kodiak | May 28, 2008 10:07 AM
Panties for Peace, Lance. That's all I'm going to say.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080527/burma_embassy_080527/20080527?hub=TopStories
Posted by: kehrsam | May 28, 2008 10:09 AM
Canada has the luxury of being internationally irrelevant and largely monochromatic when it comes to culture. This gives the illusion of social "enlightenment".
- Lance May 27, 2008 2:19 PM
Look my mother is Icelandic and my wife is Ethiopian so you knucks are not going to out "diverse" this American family. The difference is we don't wear it like a badge trying to look down our noses at other countries.
May 27, 2008 8:47 PM
6 hours to go from lambasting Canada's supposed monoculturlaism to whining abotu Canadians supposedlt attacking America.
You really are a classic example of American neo-fascism Lance - and of the generation of vipers who have turned that one-time "most powerful dynamic nation on the face of the earth" into a laughing stock in rapid and probably irreversible decline.
-
Posted by: Ian Gould | May 28, 2008 10:16 AM
kerhsam,
Now that I have been made aware of the Quebec Women's federation's "Panties for Peace!" campaign I am completely humbled.
This stunning, and mildly erotic, effort has shown me the true power and eloquence of Canadian brinkmanship. All the might and influence of the US "war machine" is embarrassingly ineffective when juxtaposed with the "manly energy sapping" power of Canadian women's undergarments.
"I don't avoid women's underwear Mandrake. I just deny them my essence."
I will have to petition my congressman to fully fund American research and development of frilly lady's "delicates".
WE MUST NOT ALLOW A PANTIES GAP!
Posted by: Lance | May 28, 2008 10:56 AM
Lance, question: Do you believe that force is the only important standard of international relevance?
Posted by: kodiak | May 28, 2008 11:04 AM
Ian,
So because I deflate the notion of a utopian Canada I am a "neo-fascist"? Maybe you should think those comments through a bit, not to mention spell check them, before you post them
Posted by: Lance | May 28, 2008 11:05 AM
No, you're a neofascist because of your unshakeable and unreasoning conviction in your own and America's innate superiority.
The smug hypocrisy with which you switch from complaining abotu Canad's supposed belief in their moral superiority ot proclaiming your own moral superiority is both contremptible and nauseating.
Still in future when I have the misfortune to read your posts at Deltoid I can read them in the knowledge that smug, ignorant abuse is your standard response to anything you perceive as a challenge to your belief in the innate superiority of American capitalism.
Posted by: Ian Gould | May 28, 2008 11:34 AM
Oh and Lance feel free to provide evidence for this "notion of a utopian Canada" you felt obliged to deflate by tossing around irrelevant abuse and factual inaccuracies.
(I should also point out here that I'm not Canadian. I've simply had my fill of arrogant knoe-nothings such as yourself.)
Posted by: Ian Gould | May 28, 2008 11:42 AM
Nah kodiak, I don't think force is the only important standard of international relevance. I only highlighted the NATO contributions (which were from NATO's December 1997 report on Financial and Economic Data Relating to NATO Defense for those asking for sources) in response to your remark that America had left Canadian forces "high and dry" in Afghanistan.
I guess I knew my remarks would start the "jingoism-fest" I mentioned. Canada has always been a loyal friend and partner and it's hard to work up any real animosity towards our northern neighbors.
I just wanted to have some fun and it's easy to get you Canadians going because it's hard to live in our shadow.
The last time I traveled to Africa there was a Canadian in our group. Everywhere we went people kept asking if he was an American. No one ever asked me if I was a Canadian.
Posted by: Lance | May 28, 2008 11:54 AM
Um, I don't get how NATO numbers that are 10 years out of date were any kind of answer at all to the Afghanistan question. To follow up with that I'll note that prominent American Generals have said that they should be putting more boots on the ground in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from re-trenching themselves... I don't see that my saying the same thing as those generals is anything more than stating a fact.
And if you were trying to stir up shit by posting ignorant remarks for kicks, well congrats, you managed it. But I don't see the point. You didn't actually manage to deflate anyone's opinion of Canada (or America) and instead you have people genuinely confused as to what point you are trying to make (since you kept shifting the goalposts) and getting some of them riled enough to research opposite stances out of frustration.
None of that leads to a healthy discussion of anything. You might want to reconsider your goals and then reconsider your motives for posting here (where reasoned rational discussion is prefered).
As for guessing someone is American, I've been in groups that ask Australians if they're British (or Irish if they're British... that's always good for a laugh), beacuse there are more brits and therefore you are more likely to get the right nationality if you guess the more populous group. there's 10 Americans to every Canadian... so guessing the accent is American isn't a stretch and will get "hey how'd you know" 9 of 10 times. But again, I don't understand why you bring it up.
Posted by: kodiak | May 28, 2008 12:05 PM
Ian,
You're always railing against some imaginary American "neo-fascist capitalist" bogey-man. I imagine you as a besotted aging academic still tilting against the "military industrial complex" establishment windmills of the sixties.
Is there a real person behind that tired old caricature or are you really that insipid?
Posted by: Lance | May 28, 2008 12:13 PM
kodiak,
My first point was that Canada was "internationally irrelevant". You came back with "And as for internationally irrelevant, good to see you still support the allies you left high and dry in Afghanistan who are still there trying to make a go of if in that war-torn land."
There are 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan. The US has over 30,000. So in your mind that constitutes the US leaving Canada "high and dry". Gee it must be tough to "go it alone" when you actually constitute less than ten percent of the total force.
Irrelevant doesn't mean Canada doesn't do nice things now and then just that you guys don't have a lot of pull internationally. Are you really going to try to claim that Canada is an international powerhouse?
I said that Canada was largely monochromatic culturally. This is just a fact. The US is a far more diverse society, with the attendant tensions to match.
These were simple statements designed to illustrate the demographic and political features of our two countries that drive our different social dynamics.
Then I threw in a few well intentioned barbs for laughs. I know you Canadians have a sense of humor because all of your best comics end up here. Maybe that's the problem, eh?
Posted by: Lance | May 28, 2008 12:44 PM
In the interest of escalating the war of words between the Beaver (heh) and the Bald Eagle (feather club for countries, anyone?), I hereby offer a handful of lines from the Arrogant Worms' Proud To Be Canadian (warning - contains dated Canadian pop references):
Our fair country Canada is north of the USA
Our Maritimes are lovely and our prairies give us hay
You might think you Yankees are better than us Canucks
But we don't need no microchips inside our hockey pucks
We know that you have Disney world and you keep it very
clean
But we don't have Bob Dole and we can drink when we're
nineteen
We might watch your TV shows for hours and hours and hours
We'll give you Alan Thicke, but Shania Twain is ours
CHORUS
We're proud to be Canadian
We're awfully nice to strangers, our manners be our curse
It's cool in many ways to be Canadian
We won't say that we're better, it's just that we're less worse
Your beer is not to tasty but you weather can't be beat
We all fly south in the wintertime to escape the snow and sleet
We're pleased to say we've enjoyed all your southern
charms
But we get sunburnt we exercise the right to bear our
arms
-------------------
Anyways, like Lance said, all our best comedians run off to the US to make the big bucks. So this is pretty much the best we have left. Russell Peters, where are you?
Oh, and for the record - I hate Shania Twain.
Posted by: sinned34 | May 28, 2008 1:14 PM
Lance -
I would tend to argue that it would be better if the U.S. was far less internationally relevant, considering our current relevance today.
And if you're trying to be humorous with your insults directed at our northern neighbors, you might try being less the complete and utter asshole. Fact is that the U.S. could learn a thing or fifty from Canadians. Not that they're perfect by any stretch, the subject of this post is evidence of that. But the fact remains that in many ways Canadians have a more enlightened society than the U.S. does. Don't like it, try to change it - but lets not pretend that our society is worthy of a massive superiority complex.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 28, 2008 3:14 PM
"And if you're trying to be humorous with your insults directed at our northern neighbors, you might try being less the complete and utter asshole."
I challenge you to find a remark I have made, on this thread or any other, that rivals yours for tactless vitriol.
I'm all for changing the things wrong with our country but that doesn't mean I have to pretend that the US is worthy of the contempt shown by the likes of Ian Gould.
If you choose to live in a place where used condoms and syringes are commonplace I suggest you move rather than expect that some socialist transformation will turn it into a workers paradise complete with free health care. You are responsible for the welfare of yourself and your family not me or the "government".
That's the way America works and that's the way I and millions of other responsible and self-sufficient others want it to stay.
Posted by: Lance | May 28, 2008 3:48 PM
Lance -
Canada has the luxury of being internationally irrelevant and largely monochromatic when it comes to culture. This gives the illusion of social "enlightenment".
Way to pull your weight. I feel so much safer knowing you are making that whopping 1% contribution.
What is with you knucks ripping on the US anyway? Typical whiny Canadian jealousy.
Oh yeah, that was crap never mind.
You're being a dick. I called you on it and gosh, I wasn't nice about it. Don't like being called a asshole, don't be one.
If you choose to live in a place where used condoms and syringes are commonplace I suggest you move rather than expect that some socialist transformation will turn it into a workers paradise complete with free health care.
Because gosh, we shouldn't expect our fellow Americans to actually not throw the shit on the ground in the first place. That would be far too much. Yet in Canada, that is exactly the expectation and it generally works out. Has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with cultural differences. Canadians don't tend to have this ridiculous sense of entitlement (i.e. the rules are for everyone else but me) that most Americans have and respect themselves and others around them.
And I never said a damn thing about free health care. It's not free, even when the state becomes the biggest insurer. It just makes a lot more sense to have public coverage, while allowing those who wish to get tax breaks for their own health care costs if they choose to opt out or go for a hybrid. The current health care paradigm in the U.S. is an obvious and abysmal failure. Canada's isn't perfect, but it is better than what a large percentage of Americans get.
You are responsible for the welfare of yourself and your family not me or the "government".
Never said I wasn't, fuck you very much. However, there is and always will be some responsibility in the hands of the state, responsibilities that they fail to live up to, all too often. Being poor shouldn't mean living in danger of flying bullets and toxic trash. And yet in my shitty neighborhood (which I am moving out of, because I have options that many of my worse off neighbors do not) there are an average of two shootings a month. Those who are responsible for keeping certain public areas clean just leave some of the worst filth. Those same folks wouldn't dream of leaving similar items on the ground in better parts of Portland, but could care less because its a shit neighborhood.
That's the way America works and that's the way I and millions of other responsible and self-sufficient others want it to stay.
And millions more of us don't like the idea of living in some libertarian fantasy, where we really are left to our own devices. And seeing as there are many ways in which this notion of self sufficiency is set to the wayside, for a great many things (like the post office, the treasury department, OSHA, etc.) a lot of us feel that we can do the same with other aspects that have a profound impact on public health and our social wellbeing.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 28, 2008 4:53 PM
Let's see, I called the Montreal protocol "crap" you called me a "dick".
I said some Canadians were "whiney" you said I was an "asshole".
I said you were responsible for your own life and you said "fuck you".
You will never get the control of my life you seek and that makes you angry doesn't it? I ask only to be free of your will. You can't be happy with that can you?
At least your offensive attacks are more honest than the sweetly parsed promises of socialist politicians. I give you credit for that. I prefer an enemy whose contempt is out in the open to those that pander with promises in one hand and bondage in the other.
Nice chatting with you.
Posted by: Lance | May 28, 2008 5:57 PM
Lance, you are being the quintessential ugly American and you're being an asshole. If you'd like to continue being that way, do it somewhere else.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 28, 2008 6:14 PM
Lance:
"Obviously you have an inferiority complex..."
"Yeah the most powerful dynamic nation on the face of the earth, maybe in history, feels inferior to Canada.
That was a joke right?"
My comment was not at America, it was at you. And, though you do your best to include the rest of your fellow countrymen in your postings as if they naturally stand with you and as if the dreaded kanucks are attacking all of you, it has already been pointed out that you stand pretty much alone in your vanity.
oh... and what Ed said...
Regards
Dave
Posted by: Dave | May 28, 2008 8:28 PM
Lance -
If you want to respond to me, I can be reached at duwayne.brayton at gmail dot com.
I call it like I see it. When someone comes along and prefaces their obnoxious asshattery with the notion that they aren't trying to start something, when it is obvious they are an asshole. When they try to dress up obnoxious insults in "polite" language, they are an asshole. The more they try to pretend to be doing anything different, the more of an asshole they are.
You will never get the control of my life you seek and that makes you angry doesn't it? I ask only to be free of your will. You can't be happy with that can you?
This is fucking hilarious. I haven't the least interest in controlling your life, wouldn't want it and find the notion reprehensible. You are making some very remarkable assumptions about me, based on very limited information. I am very much an advocate of fairly absolute personal autonomy.
I advocate for proactive assisted suicide. I.e. instead of just removing me from lifesupport or withholding it in accordance with my desires, a doctor would give me a lethal, painless injection. I advocate for legalization and regulation of currently illicit drugs. I advocate for legal and safe prostitution. I advocate ending the state monopolies on gambling. I advocate the reinstitution of our civil liberties. I advocate against speech restrictions suggested by ideological extremists when it could support their agendas.
That I advocate for universal health care is not somehow going to put you in bondage in any way. I don't even care if the UHC is state financed or achieved in a free market, I just happen to be tired of the massive waste. We spend exponentially more per capita for health care than any country in the world. Yet we are towards the bottom of the barrel when it comes to quality of care in developed nations. Now if it were possible to band together the un-insured, the under insured and those who are being crippled by paying for decent health insurance and use the money spent on care for these groups more efficiently, I am not going to worry about the making the government the carrier. Medicare actually operates far more efficiently than private insurance carriers, spending far less than they do on overhead. As long as it is not mandatory, using the state as the carrier isn't going to hurt anyone. And it could be partially funded through "sin" taxes on our newly legalized recreational drugs.
In theory, we the people are the government. There are a lot of problems with that, the worst being political parties, that make that more of an ideal than a reality. But given the ability to fix that (and even without fixing it) there is no reason not to use our government to be a provider of certain essential services.
I am not however, a socialist, any more than I am a capitalist. I am realistic and understand that the world simply cannot run on pure ideology. Pure capitalism, pure democracy, pure socialism, pure totalitarianism, pure corporatocracy - none of it can work. Yet a mixture that includes more of some less of others, but one that actually contains elements of all I listed and more does. The trick is finding the right balance. I think that ultimately, the U.S. has probably come closest to the ideal balance than anyone else, but that doesn't mean their isn't a lot that could be a lot better.
And it doesn't mean that a lot of other countries don't kick our asses at a lot of things, including the Canadians. The things that I listed are all things that Canada does better than we do. That doesn't mean that we can't do even better in those regards, it just means we haven't yet. I like to think that we will, and on the healthcare front, if it can be done without the intervention of the state, even better.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 28, 2008 8:47 PM
Spending time in Canada every summer, I've had a chance to ask quite a few people about their health care system and the conclusion I've come to is that it is not much beter or worse than ours. The one time a family member needed to see a doctor it was an interminable wait-much like our own emergency rooms.
Looking around the world many counries are trying to institute health care systems to improve upon western averages and most are struggling. Are there any examples where high quality care doesn't cost more than people want to pay?
Posted by: Rich | May 29, 2008 3:12 AM
Ed,
So I'm the "quintessential ugly American" huh? I asked what was the evidence that Canada was "...a lot more enlightened and rational about a great many things than my country is."
Perhaps you would point to the legalization of same sex marriage. Well this is a recent event in Canadian law. As recently as 2003 there were government bans on gay marriage in Canada.
Currently two states in the US, California and Massachusetts, allow same sex marriage and there is growing political pressure to allow it in a great many other states, so it would appear that while Canada is ahead of the US in this measure of "enlightenment" we are following close behind.
I then made the completely factual statements that Canada has a more homogeneous population than the US and that it isn't subject to the same international pressures due to its much smaller international presence.
I never directly insulted any individual while being called vile names by others and now by you. I appear to have offended you and others by expressing my opinion that while a fine place Canada has no legitimate claim to being a "great deal more enlightened" than the US.
I made some mildly insulting light-hearted comments about Canadians in general. I wasn't aware that this was out of bounds here especially since "culture wars" is part of the title of your bog.
Hey, it's your show and as you have said to others that have annoyed you there are plenty of other blogs out there. If you want to censor me here feel free, but what does that say about your tolerance of dissent in your own forum?
Posted by: Lance | May 29, 2008 10:49 AM
"I then made the completely factual statements that Canada has a more homogeneous population than the US"
Except for the slight problem that it isn't factual. A check with the US Census Bureau gives a percentage for "White alone" which is very close to the number for the same group within the Canadian population.
Oh, JSYK: One of the traits of the "quintessential ugly American" is that they never realize just why people don't like them.
Posted by: Rick Pikul | May 29, 2008 11:54 AM
It's not dissent that bothers me, it's that typical xenophobic "America is the greatest country in the history of the world and you're just a lowly foreigner" bullshit you've been spewing. You're being an asshole. You can stop voluntarily or involuntarily.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 29, 2008 12:15 PM
Ed,
Hmmm, I don't think I said that "America is the greatest country in the history of the world and you're just a lowly foreigner".
I did say that America is "...the most powerful dynamic nation on the face of the earth, maybe in history..." and I am open to any rational discussion to the contrary. I note that I said that in response to a comment that claimed I had an "inferiority complex".
And other than quoting a comedic hand puppet's insulting joke about French Canadians I don't believe I maligned any "foreigners".
And calling me xenophobic is just ludicrous since my wife and all the relatives on my mother's side are all "foreigners".
I think you are confusing my pride in my country for nationalism. I find it odd that you have no problem openly praising Canada, after apologizing for any slight they may have inferred from your criticism of their human rights commission, but recoil at the thought that an American might object to your remark that Canada was "...a lot more enlightened and rational about a great many things than my country is."
I just thought your remark was overstating the difference in our two countries and that there were reasons for the differences that do exist that are not necessarily related to any "enlightenment" gap.
The jabs at Canada were light hearted and indeed at least one Canadian, sinned34, took them that way.
While I share your disdain for nationalism and xenophobia I am perplexed that your definitions of these two concepts seem to preclude pride in one's country, at least if that country is the USA.
I have read this post three times now and I don't think there is anything in it that would qualify me as an "asshole", but apparently that power is locally granted to you.
Posted by: Lance | May 29, 2008 12:53 PM
Rich -
The problem with quality if care in the U.S. is far more than wait times. Let me use myself as an example of the problem.
A couple of years ago I got a bacterial infection from my now six year old. He went to the doctor and got put on antibiotics and got over it. I did not. Instead, I kept up with a low grade infection that progressed into pneumonia. In the process I managed to reinfect my son twice, requiring more antibiotics both times. It wasn't until I got really sick and passed out on a job, that I finally went to the emergency room.
I lost a weeks worth of work because of this. My son had to take antibiotics three times for the same bug - the ideal situation for a bug trying to evolve defenses against antibiotics. My cost for the ER visit was three hundred dollars. The cost to health care consumers who use that particular health care system (through a program that helps those who can't pay) was around twenty-eight hundred dollars to pay the doctors and nurses who took care of me. The hospital itself ate the overhead related costs for my visit, as well as the cost of the antibiotics and painkillers (I fractured a couple ribs throwing up).
With reasonable access to health care, this whole event would have been taken care of with a quick visit to the doctor and a script for antibiotics. That is not quality care and wouldn't have happened if I were Canadian and lived in Canada.
Please understand that I am not trying to say that the Canadian system is perfect or should even be a model for the U.S. to deal with our health care crisis. All that I am saying is that the U.S. system is grossly inefficient and offers abysmal care for those who are uninsured or underinsured. This abysmal care is not because of waiting room blues or bad health care professionals, rather it is because of restrictions on the availability of care and restrictions on therapies (drugs or other prescribed treatments).
Posted by: DuWayne | May 29, 2008 2:40 PM
Lance -
While I share your disdain for nationalism and xenophobia I am perplexed that your definitions of these two concepts seem to preclude pride in one's country, at least if that country is the USA.
There is a huge difference between having pride in one's country and belittling another. You know what? The U.S. is a great country in many ways. This does not mean that we have some innate superiority to everyone else. This does not mean that other countries aren't going to have their own area's where they manage better than we do.
You asked how they are more enlightened, then initially ignored it when I actually responded to it. It wasn't until I called you on being a dick that you did. Then when you actually responded you missed the point completely.
Point being that in Canada, those problems are considerably smaller. We can argue whether the solution they had for health care was right or wrong, what cannot be argued is that they don't do better than we do. We can argue the why of it, but fact is that they are exponentially cleaner, even in the poor areas. Fact is that they don't have nearly the problem with violence in the streets that we do, even in the poor areas. Fact is that most of their education systems are superior to most of the systems in the U.S. Fact is that they also treat gays a hell of a lot better than we do. The fact that two states out of fifty have gotten it (mostly) right, does not mean they aren't doing a world better than we are.
These are areas where Canada is a lot more enlightened than the U.S. You'll notice that the enlightenment that I refer to is mostly cultural, rather than state driven. Education and health care are the areas that required state intervention. Unfortunately, they have also put state intervention on gay rights - not only in the appropriate front; legal rights, but to the extent of outlawing certain speech. But even sans state intervention on legal rights, culturally Canadians have done much better than we have on acceptance of gays.
And yes, you really have been an asshole here. That you're the only one who doesn't seem to recognize that speaks volumes. You come in with this America is the best and those stupid Canucks can't even begin to compete, all the while claiming that you really aren't trying to start something. You claim that because the U.S. is so relevant in the international community, we are better than Canadians. With every comment you feel the need to belittle non-Americans, oozing with a sense of smug superiority. These are the actions of an asshole.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 29, 2008 3:02 PM
Du Wayne,
I'm smug?! Christ you sound like a deranged inquisitor pronouncing sentence.
You distort my comments and then lambaste me with personal insults.
Get a grip.
Also I noticed that you share the same last name as our host. Perhaps that explains the reason you are permitted to post comments full of obscenities, personal attacks and distortions with impunity while I am chastened for the high crime of gently teasing Canadians.
Posted by: Lance | May 29, 2008 4:35 PM
"Please understand that I am not trying to say that the Canadian system is perfect or should even be a model for the U.S. to deal with our health care crisis. All that I am saying is that the U.S. system is grossly inefficient and offers abysmal care for those who are uninsured or underinsured. This abysmal care is not because of waiting room blues or bad health care professionals, rather it is because of restrictions on the availability of care and restrictions on therapies (drugs or other prescribed treatments)."
DuWayne,
I certainly agree with your conclusion that we have a growing problem of both uninsured and under insured people, and they will become increasingly desperate until we figure out an improved system. Scientific progress in biotechnology, chemistry, and even software/hardware used in test and diagnostic systems all would point to better care being the norm rather than worse. It does not pass the resonableness test that we collectively would end up with worse care.
The main dilema I see is what kind of answers really make sense, as I've researched (not in depth by any means) how other countries are approaching the issue. Many of them look smart and promising at first, but once true underlying costs are taken into account very few provide significantly better care while not costing an arm and a leg (sorry bad pun). Most seem to do a better job of basic care than we do, but fall down on in some areas of sophisticated care. Anyway thanks for your well thought out response.
Posted by: Rich | May 29, 2008 4:39 PM
I know you all disagree with most of what I say, but this article is one of the big reasons I oppose the pro-gay movement here in America. I don't really care what gays want to do with themselves, it is what comes as gays advance their "agenda" that I am worried about. The gay lobby is the biggest promoter of hate-crime and hate speech laws in this country. Rep. Barney Frank (who is gay) recently introduced such a law at the federal level. People have already been prosecuted for supposed hate speech at the state level for simply expressing their religious beliefs about homosexuality. Now I know that we disagree quite strongly (to put it mildly) on the issue of gay marriage, but can we at least agree that it is absolutely critical to freedom for ALL that even opinions we may not like be protected? Hate crime laws eventually lead to hate speech laws and hate speech laws are absolutely inappropriate in a free society.
Posted by: mroberts | May 29, 2008 10:58 PM
My feeling mroberts, is that if homosexuals did not feel so threatened then perhaps the one's calling for such laws would not feel a need for the protection those laws provide. If the persecution stops so does the need for protection from it. So if anti-free speech legislation is you main fear, move on over to my side and help put an end to the maltreatment of homosexuals.
(Unlikely I know. But I had to try. *wink*)
I agree with this, as would just about everyone I know, including the gay activists. I would campaign against hate-speech laws as vigorously as I do other forms of oppression.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 29, 2008 11:35 PM
Hate crime laws and hate speech laws are entirely different things. I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws either, but they are not at all the same thing as hate speech laws, nor does one lead to the other. With hate crime laws, an actual crime has to be committed; the only thing that changes is that the punishment is a bit worse if it can be shown that the crime was committed out of bigotry. In a perfect world, I wouldn't have such laws but I don't think they're a big threat to liberty. We do take motivation into account in a number of ways in criminal law when it comes to the severity of the punishment (like the difference between premeditated murder and a crime of passion or negligent homicide). This is just another example.
Hate speech laws, on the other hand, are a direct violation of the first amendment. But let's bear in mind that there are no hate speech laws in the US and the courts have been fairly zealous in preserving free speech in the widest possible sense (even ruling, for instance, that a government may not charge for extra police protection for protests that need it lest those charges be used to dissuade unpopular speech, and even ruling that burning a cross in the yard of a black family cannot be punished for the message it conveys but only on neutral grounds like trespassing, vandalism, etc). The only place we have hate speech problems in this country is on college campuses, where they are not laws but rules for conduct and admission. And even there, the courts have consistently struck down such codes when challenged (which is why I think we need to file suits against such codes all around the country and get rid of them once and for all).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 29, 2008 11:59 PM
"...but once true underlying costs are taken into account very few provide significantly better care while not costing an arm and a leg (sorry bad pun)."
That sounds like you have never looked into just how much Americans pay for health care. One shocking fact is that the US actually has either the highest or second highest per capita _government_ spending on health care on Earth, (the distinction is based on counting employee health insurance for public employees). In the US you're not just paying an arm and a leg, but a good chunk of your side too. If only some smart politician in the States would realize what a selling package this could be.
(We'll give you health care with no up-front payments, reduce the amount you/your employer have to spend on insurance, and use the reduced costs to cut taxes.)
As for care levels, WHO studies have been pretty consistent that, not account for basic accessibility, quality of care is about equal across the developed world. There are variations with particular conditions, but that's not surprising.
Posted by: Rick Pikul | May 30, 2008 12:12 PM
Rich -
The problem is that the system is grossly inefficient now. Not just a little, not just in a couple of areas. The illness that I described above, could have been dealt with with a hundred dollar doctor visit and less than forty dollars in antibiotics. Instead it cost thousands. And it is not uncommon. You mentioned waiting times in ERs. Where do you think the bulk of that comes from? People coming to the ER with problems that could probably still be dealt with by a primary physician or could have been before it became acute.
In many places, the state will take some liability for the expenses. In many places though, the state just requires that ERs provide treatment for life threatening or potentially life threatening medical problems - it's up to the hospital (thus paying health care consumers) to cover the cost.
This is just a tiny example of the waste of our current health care paradigm. And it really is just a drop in the bucket.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 1, 2008 7:46 PM