[MaineUSAGuy]

I had a fantasy that my parents had immigrated to Canada instead of the U.S.

I had been born in Toronto instead of NYC since Toronto reminds me a bit of NYC because both cities are the largest in their respective countries.

But that´s a fantasy and likely something in an alternate universe.

[zapfrog]

New here, so go easy on me. Why am I here?

Have visited Canada a few times waay back when and loved it, the wife has never been. I keep telling her once she goes she'll never want to come back.

Political; Doing as much research as possible in this area. I realize all countries have their problems but it seems as though the US is going down the road from which it won't return. Do we stay and be apart of a movement that tries to correct or run before things get really bad? Lately people in the US don't want to acknowledge history or fail to see the importance in it down here. Don't want to seem all doom and gloom but it seems we are taking the slow road that follows the blueprint used by Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler. Not sure we want to endure that.

[Psudo]

Yay necrothread! And a good one, too.

Unsound Unsound:

Why are you here? [...] I'm just curious as to why you're interested in Canadian politics, or Canadian opinions on American politics.

I like political theory, and it's an interesting contrast. Our cultures and demographics are dramatically similar, so our different approaches are fairly valid comparisons in ways that comparisons to European or Chinese policy are not.

Also, I like views I haven't heard before and, since I've lived in the same place all my life, I felt I needed some outside perspective to keep from being a country bumpkin. Most political forums are pretty much useless by definition (controversy plus anonymity plus an audience), but CKA bucks that trend. People sometimes listen to others' arguments, admit their own faults, and might even change their minds when faced with overwhelming evidence that they're wrong. These might sound like qualified compliments, but such occurrence of such genuine open-mindedness are more precious than diamonds and certainly more rare.

Additionally, I like foreign policy, and 99% of foreign policy is understanding other countries. The ideal website I'd like to visit would have about three politically interested laypeople from each of about 70 countries that all write monthly updates about what's going on in their country's civics and politics and their views on international issues (in English). That would be indescribably rad. As it is, I have this place, a former e-friendship with a Singaporean, and this primer on Dutch politics by that legend of JavaScript knowledge ppk of quirksmode.org (whom you've probably never heard of unless you really, really like making webpages). Can I count Zipperfish's blog from Afghanistan yet? Probably not. Anyway, this place has the best international representation and civil atmosphere I've yet found anywhere. If I got paid hourly for being here, I would be set for life.

Also, Canada is the only foreign country I've actually visited, and JJ's comics are awesome, and I've been here long enough to have a reputation and an ingrained habit, etc.

Gunnair Gunnair:

I don't go to an American forum to convert the unwashed masses to the Canadian way of life.

There have been a few Canadians in pretty much every forum I've ever visited. Are you willing to bet that none of them are ever so arrogant?

QBC QBC:

indeed all our US members, could very well be in the employ of the CIA, Homeland Security, the FBI or the many other US government agencies.

I wish I had their paycheck.

zapfrog zapfrog:

Do we stay and be apart of a movement that tries to correct or run before things get really bad?

To be [American] or not to be? That is the question; whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

I had been born in Toronto instead of NYC since Toronto reminds me a bit of NYC because both cities are the largest in their respective countries.

Stephen Fry a British actor and comedian remarked that Toronto was like New York if it were run by the Swiss.

[DanSC]

This tread is still going?

[Gunnair]

DanSC DanSC:

This tread is still going?

Love the Quebecois accent!

[EyeBrock]

I ear it too!

[zapfrog]

@Psudo Ah yes a little Shakespeare in there Several new bills (haven't passed yet) are very troubling one dealing with basically giving the military/police unfettered power to lock up anyone they see fit without due cause, trial and locked up for ever. The other bill was going to make it illegal for small to mid size farms to sell locally (farm stands, farmers markets), trade food, give food to shelters and a myriad of other hurdles. Co-authored by both a dem. and a rep. with one having ties to Carghill and the other with ties to Monsanto.

I think if all Americans spent 20-30 minutes of their morning coffee looking over the bills and who authors them there just might be more of an agreement of what to do in this country. Yet we are as divided as ever.

[DanSC]

I really want to see a thread entitled "Question for our Australian members" asking why they're here.

[MacAilbert]

I'm here because Canada is boss, and I'd move there if I qualified for immigration (Which I don't. I lack an in demand job skill.).

[coaster_dot]

MacAilbert MacAilbert:

I'm here because Canada is boss, and I'd move there if I qualified for immigration (Which I don't. I lack an in demand job skill.).

I would do as much traveling as you can up there. After I joined this site I have made it to every province (excluding the territories) and my perspective has changed so much on life and just everything in general.

While I still would love to move up there, I am thinking more realistically and working towards that job "in demand". And who knows, maybe in a few years it will actually become a reality.

[Psudo]

@zapfrog: I don't often get a chance to quote Shakespeare. The little I know is rarely applicable.

Most US bills are not passed (I think 2-3% become law), and many are intended as symbolic statements rather than serious attempts to produce law. There was a Democrat who authored a bill to reinstate a military draft, for example. That was an attempt to ignite outrage against the war in Iraq, not serious support for a draft. That said, I'd love to see Twitter feeds that give short layman summaries of House and Senate bills as they are proposed with links to full details; basically, your reading-over-coffee idea for the digital age.

Also, I'm more interested in the sponsors' rationale than their ties. The wrong thing to do is still wrong even if it's your own personal idea, and the right thing to do is still right even if a multinational corporation pays you to do it. Those two bills don't sound like those things from your description, but hearing their stammering, embarrassed concessions or bombastic, broken defenses would go a long way to convince me.

Does Canada have far more bills proposed than passed, too? Is that a statistic with a recognized name? The comparison would tell us something fundamental about parliamentary system vs. congressional systems.

[GreenTiger]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

I think thankfully most of the people here really are good company. Even when you disagree with them.

Cheers to our American friends.

Exactly, exactly, exactly

That puts it well, we know we are in good company.

[zapfrog]

@Psudo the bill dealing with unlawful detention is actually embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. This is usually the act that gets passed for military funding but this time around they have slipped in some very contraversial pieces. Obama at first said he would veto it but now it looks like he will pass it.

[Psudo]

Thanks, zapfrog! That was enough info for a decent Google search.

If they pass a law, how can it be called "unlawful"? Most of these articles say "indefinite detention."

Secondly, the law says "a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" can be held "without trial until the end of the hostilities." (My source for these quotes is this extremely opposed article.) In light of US troops leaving Iraq this month, I don't think we can presuppose hostilities of unlimited duration. Thus, we can't presuppose detention of unlimited duration, either. The exact duration of the detention is unclear, I admit; It'll be a few more years, but exactly how many is unknown. But the wording of the law takes away the scary connotation of "eternal detention."

I hardly think a law with an expiration condition built right in can be taken as some great attack on enduring constitutional principles, especially since I know of no US policy limiting the duration of the detainment of regular prisoners of war, either (ie, those who constitute soldiers under Geneva because they are accountable to governments and wear uniforms in exactly the way al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists typically do not). Basically, this policy says, "Treat them like other prisoners of war." It's exactly the type of thing human rights advocates called for from the Bush Administration for years in the effort to end the "enemy combatant" distinction, but now that they're getting it they act like it's some new attack on human rights. I call BS on that.

It is an inroad against freedom in the pursuit of security, and there's a reasonable basis for criticism based on that principle. Yet there is a valid defense of the clause on the principle that security makes freedom possible, too. It's a philosophical controversy, not a clear mistake as it is portrayed.