Having mulled over some of the commentary on Paul Martin's decision not to participate in ballistic missle defense with the United States. Right thinking people probably has a good sense of what's going on. I'm not surprised by it because it really is the Liberal schtick: symbolic gestures that do nothing (see: gun registry).
The reason it is an empty gesture is simple: Canada ultimately will participate in BMD, using NORAD as an excuse; and if there was really a ballistic missile attack on the United States, Canada would have absolutely no say on US interceptor missiles over Canadian airspace.
What is truly pathetic is the adolescent behaviour of a segment of the Canadian population - who seem to dominate the MSM, the Liberal Party, and the other elites in Canada. They'll take the money, vacation in Florida, give nothing and return and demand that their independence be respected and spite the generosity of their neighbours. Sounds more like teenagers to me.
Secondly, I find it now sad to say that my Canadian history and identity is now replaced by defining a Canadian as a shrill anti-American who gets "free" health care. Are those really the pillars that you want to build a society on? For the Liberals in Canada - the answer is yes. And that answer is another reason why I left.
2 comments:
Being a shrill anti-American is not so unusual. Even if we add all of the pro-Americans who live in the U.S. to all of the pro-Americans who don't, the anti-Americans would still constitute the world majority. As for "free" health care, it's usually called universal health care and seems to be the overwhelming choice of most industrialized countries. The "free" is used by conservatives to make it seem like the liberals are minimizing or ignoring the cost. Because the program is run by the government doesn't make it free, but it does make it available to everyone. The scam is run differently in the U.S. Here, if you don't have health insurance, you can still go to an emergency room for treatment. The cost is added to the bills of the insured. This means that the treatment was not free here either, but the cost is higher because the poor have to use E.R. services.
My view of the late 1800's must be different than these neo-cons who want to emulate that era when social Darwinism was considered cool.
By the way, Mitch, I was thinking about our noble leader last night and a word came to mind that might have something to do with current world opinion about the U.S.:
Main Entry: meg·a·lo·ma·nia
Pronunciation: "me-g&-lO-'mA-nE-&, -ny&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance
2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur
- meg·a·lo·ma·ni·ac /-'mA-nE-"ak/ adjective or noun
Your point is taken on the "free" aspect of it on the insurance cost. That is quite true. What I think is the common ground is that there needs to be greater transparency of the hidden costs so one can get a better appreciation, or a better grasp of what the 'cost' and 'value' of something truely is.
Second, when I refer to Canadian medicare being 'free' - I mean it as a characterization by a signficant segment of the Canadian population who view it that way - those who don't realize or ignore the relationship between the tax burden they have and the services they recieve.
Third - the numbers thing of pro and con is irrelavent - please reference my 'world opinion' comments from Pukoff's office LOL!
Keep on writing Bill - I'm going to give you column space for some of this stuff!
Post a Comment