Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!ubc-vision!fornax!chapman
From: chapman@fornax.uucp
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: definitions of culture, really Brad, Brad, Brad....wake up
Message-ID: <202@fornax.uucp>
Date: Wed, 25-Feb-87 04:52:35 EST
Article-I.D.: fornax.202
Posted: Wed Feb 25 04:52:35 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Feb-87 18:35:38 EST
References: <192@fornax.uucp> <744@looking.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada
Lines: 157

and smell the coffee.

> I found it interesting to note that several of Mr. Chapman's examples
> of Canadian Culture are direct results of our close relationship with
> the US of A!

A general comment first: it may surprise you but not all (not even most)
of the good things in the world are attributable to the 5% of the world
that lives in the US.
 
> In article <192@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes:
> >
> >1. Canada is one of the few (perhaps only) countries which has had
> >   the ability to become a major nuclear power and yet we have
> >   resisted the temptation to stockpile or even manufacture nuclear
> >   weapons.
> 
> We have no need, because we have all the nukes we need nearby.

You mean it isn't because there is no one who's going to attack us?
Let's face it the only real danger to Canada is the US/USSR conflict.
Personally if I get nuked it's not going to make me feel better that 
it had a stars and stripes on it.

>
> >
> >2. Health care is of good quality and access is almost universal (you
> >   still have to have some money).  It is unlikely you would have
> >   your dialisys (sp?) machine turned off because you are broke.
> 
> Most of the innovative health care is imported from our near neighbour.
> (The techniques, not the actual practice)

I seriously doubt you could prove that assertion - things *are* developed
in the rest of the world you know (e.g. pacemakers by canada). However
even if that were so the commetn is how that medical ability is put to
use here. Only three provinces (BC, Alta, Ont) even charge for their
health plans. Just like in England - not like in the US.

> >
> >3. Canada has not (recently anyway) attempted to force it way of
> >   life (or advance it's economic and political interests) on other
> >   countries through military force - covert or otherwise.
> I guess Korea isn't that recent.
thats what I figured. 30 years is a lot longer than the states has managed
i.e. 0 days.

> >
> >   Ditto for economic force.
> Like the calls for sanctions on South Africa, and our many tariffs.

I fail to see how tariffs (or to a large extent even sanctions) can be
considered forcing ourselves on another country.  If I refuse to buy
software from your company am I forcing myself on you?  Even if the
reason had nothing to do with it's quality or suitability?

> >
> >4. Canadians are not egotistical enough to think they know what is
> >   "best" for the rest of the world.
> This I doubt.  Some Canadians sure think they know (and should force) what
> is "best" for the rest of Canada.  Given the authority they would surely
> do the same to the world. 

That is quite a big jump from our backyard to the rest of the world.  If 
people set up rules for their family it doesn't mean they are going to
go out into the street and try and enforce them on others.

> >
> >5. Canada lets itself be pushed around a fair bit by other countries.
> >   We seem to have a foreign policy of being "nice guys".
> Give me a break.  This is not a foreign policy.  I don't think anybody
> lets themselves get 'pushed around.'

The you don't have much experience.

> >
> >6. We apparently have a reasonably high regard for the worth of human
> >   life in general as evidenced by our broad system of "safety nets"
> >   in the social services area.
> Did you know that the U.S.A spends a greater percentage of its G.N.P.
> on social services than Canada does?  Of course, they mismanage it to
> the same level we do.

They must mismanage it to an even greater extent then since we provide
services they don't.

> >
> >7. Canadians are quite self critical and self effacing as can be seen
> >   in our media, and we are capable of admitting to the world when
> >   we make mistakes.
> What a great definition of national identity.

I think it beats going around chanting "we are the best, we are the best"
not to mention a whole lot less dangerous to bystanders.
Would you like to live with someone who was completely and vocally
egocentric?

> >
> >10. There seems to be a smaller distance, economically, between the
> >    rich and poor than is the case of a lot of other countries.
> Not from what I have read in recent articles about the Conrad Blacks and
> the Bronfmans and Irvings and McCains etc.

Then you shoud spend some tme visiting large US cities and see the
extent of poverty and ghetto-ization.

> >
> >11. Political and economic decisions seem less tied to military
> >    interests in Canada.
> Only because we are in the uniqe position of not needing a military because
> of our strong neighbour.

Or because we aren't planning on fighting anybody.
 could really do without this "protection" (see I didn't even put in
the word "racket").

> >
> >12. Education through to post secondary is generally available to
> >    all who desire it at relatively low cost (however this has been
> >    changing -particularily in BC).  You do not have to be upper
> >    middle class or above to be able to attend university.
> State schools are available in the USA at a cost near to the cost of
> our schools.  Of course, the most respected schools, like Stanford, MIT,
> Carnagie-Mellon, Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc. are all private and in
> the USA.  Many of our best students go there.  Even NSERC recognizes this
> by having multiple scholarship levels.  Average scholars have to stay here.
> The best get to go to places like Stanford.

Really? When I read the NSERC guidelines it seems to me it stated that
NSERC scholarships were only tenurable at Canadian universities.
Postdoc fellowships are another matter.
Tuition at american universities is phenomenally high - even the state
universities charge large out of state fees.  The scene is different
at graduate school since funding packages are usually arranged.
I have been told by american faculty that, for example, at MIT there
is quite a difference between the undergraduate and graduate populations.
The undergrads are (excepting a few tokens) upper class economically
but there is more diversity in the graduates (particularily due to
things like foreign graduates).

> >
> >13. We seem fairly federally oriented - the balance of decision
> >    making and enforcement powers between the federal and provincial
> >    governments is in the federal government's favour.
> This is really a comparison to the USA only, since most countries aren't
> large enough to have a serious federal/provincial distinction.  The USSR
> is, and boy is that federally oriented!

China, Australia, India.....?

> 
> 
> -- 
> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

Call me MR. CHAPMAN (TIBBS)!
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***