• Matt97

    I think its quite interesting the concept of Asia is actually a Latin word and there is no 'native' word to describe Asians. I think it actually shows the differential identification of Asians with each other.

    On the point of the choose your own apocalypse I had the following
    - Ocean Acidification (established phenomena and could lead to mass starvation)
    - loose nukes (the old USSR has too many nukes that is not well guarded)
    - peak oil (will happen sometime)
    - Decadence (the salving of the minds of the citizens by materialism and entertainment so they don't concentrate on what is important)
    - Wealth Gap (there has always been conflict where there is disparate wealth and income distribution).

    I didn't number them as I think all are likely and they will compound each other as they occur simultaneously. Decadence will/is occurring so that no one pays attention to the important issues. During that time ocean acidification will finally make the commercial fishing collapse and the climate effects of the destruction of the orgamisms that actually give us most of our oxygen and climate regulation will mean that the crops will fail or make them less reliable. This will lead to greater wealth gap occurring as the soaring food prices drives need lower to middle middle class into desperate straits. The wealthy will stay wealthy due to their control of the few resources left. Peak oil will be occurring at this time leading to ever higher food prices. This will occur as peak oil will lead to the fertilizers and transport costs sky rocketing. This will make the poor in the world become extremist as they will view their pliant as the wealthy westerners fault. They will then gain the “loose nukes” and make a grand car bomb (shipping container will still be a good method of delivery) and destroy key cities leading to a collapse of all social order.

    Any way that is one scenario :P lets see who comes up with the most innovative scenario and get Roger and Tom to pick one? What do people say?

    Also Tom seemed a bit upset by my “pettiness” but I was thinking more that if I start to have a different user name then there is the loss of continuity with the posts from the past. Especially with everyone not been able to keep their previous user name we loose the familiarity that we have gained and attach with the current/old user names. anyway sorry if I caused offense.

  • techpriest

    Matt97: couldnt you post as a guest, and hence keep your name?

  • acedtect

    Wasn't upset about 'pettiness' at all! Sorry if I sounded more miffed than I felt. Was annoyed that the system made you lose your name while everyone else's was available.

  • dbrodbeck

    The discussion about the cultural differences between Latino people was good stuff. On the point of them not all being Mexican, well I think that is irrelevant. Here in Canada there is a rather strong (though not as strong as it used to be) Quebec nationalist movement. They do not want to revert Quebec to New France, they want Quebec to be a separate country. Now this movement is, at the core, one of ethnic nationalism, at least to me. It clearly started out as a movement about white French speaking people, most of whom were the descendants of colonists that came in the 1600s. Now, more recently the Quebec nationalist/separatist movement has made overtures to other francophones in Quebec, such as Algerians, Moroccans, Haitians and Vietnamese people that live in Quebec. (Quebec has some control over immigration to the province, and they tend to pick people that can already speak French). There have been varying levels of success with these overtures, and it may all just be for show, but it is perhaps a model for such a movement in the States.

  • http://jollyroger.myopenid.com/ Roger

    Good point however I do not think the point is “irrelevant”. While overtures were made to the various francophone “visible minorities” in Quebec how successful has it been in terms of unifying a broad reaching secessionist mindset in those communities?

    Are you intimating that people who share the same linguistic and histories automatically form a nation? Will the the anglophone parts of Canada be interested in joining up with the US and form a nation as a result? After all we both share a common colonial history, speak the same language, watch the same shows, drive the same cars, etc?

    My point has been how simplistic the logic is behind the La Republica del Norte. Whose republic would it be?

    The millions of Latino's that intermarry within the larger American demographic and who percentage wise have the highest rates of intermarriage of any American racial or ethinc group? Puerto Ricans who are already US citizens? Cubans-Americans? Mexican Indians from the poorer southern states of Mexico that has seen its own separatist movement appear in the state of Chiapas? Central Americans who have their own political and social frictions with their larger northern neighbor?

  • http://www.justinluey.com Justin Luey

    Using Disqus is a great idea. I like being able to use the same login on multiple sites, and it makes it easy to track your various discussions. There is also a feature to automatically import comments from Twitter and other “Web 2.0″ sites.

  • Matt97

    I could do it that way but that isn't the proper way to use these types of services.

  • Matt97

    I also think that the aspirations of the Hispanics is to live the “American” dream and so they buy into the values and goals of the US. That been the case it is a bit different to the situation in Quebec.

    Anyway I think all the issues surrounding Quebec and the other states of Canada will become moot when the US invades Canada for their water supplies.

  • dbrodbeck

    Irrelevant may be a tad strong. I will say that the separatist movement wants to be a big tent, and there are a few Bloc MPs at the federal level that are not white people, but that is the exception not the rule.

    On the 'nation' thing, the motion of the Canadian parliament that recognized the Quebecois nation was about the people that are the descendants of the colonists pretty clearly. It is not about those others. All that said, I think that a common experience of being a minority in a country with a (perceived) threatened language (in the Quebec example) does bind people. Oh and no, not in the near term I do not see Canada becoming part of the US, though I see more integration as time goes by, such as what has happened in Europe. I imagine in 20 or 30 years there will be a NAFTA parliament for example. (That sound you just heard was Lou Dobbs's head exploding….)

  • dbrodbeck

    Matt, yes, indeed it is different. THere is a cultural memory in Quebec of being a conquered people, which I do not think exists in Latinos in the US.

    I would be more concerned about the States and how they get most of their evil foreign oil from us…. Oh and we have provinces, not states….

  • Matt97

    I stand corrected. I personally think that there will be bigger and more wars over water. The reason why is because I think there is no market for the mass transportation of water (different from the bottled water industry which is a appalling waste of resources) and little or no public appetite for the selling of something like water.

    Come to think of it the moment Canada seeks or even talks seriously of restricting access to the US to such items as oil there will be a lot of pressure used before military action occur.

    In regards to Quebec been a conquered nation as compared to the latinos in the South West of the US I think there is more similarities than differences in their history. The differences were the Quebecians were 'humored' by been allowed to keep using their language as one of the official languages. The problem if you wish to integrate them is that they feel no need to assimilate as they keep using french and also it builds a barrier to entry for other citizens in other provinces and also gives them a sense of otherness to the rest of the nation.

    The only democratic nation that has mutliple official languages is India and they have massive issue with sectarian violence and also heavy use of police and military forces to maintain order.

  • dbrodbeck

    Quebec is a strange and wonderful place. My parents are from Montreal, anglo Quebeckers, and my wife is a francophone from Quebec City. Montreal is, in essence, a bilingual city. There are other cities like that in Canada, Sudbury ON, Muncton, NB come to mind. The rest of Quebec, for the most part, is francophone. They were allowed to keep their language, religion and civil court system when the UK defeated France in the Seven Years War. When confederation happened in 1867 it was basically a partnership between French speaking and English speaking Canadians. That said, the anglos dominated institutions for a long time.

    Switzerland, Belgium, Canada come to mind quickly as counties that have more than one official language. In Nunavut Territory Inuktatuk has official status as well. Canada is bilingual federally, English is the official language provincially in eight provinces, French in one, and one is bilingual (New Brunswick). Ontario, where I live, is bilingual de facto but not de jure. Our provincial premier is bilingual and one can ask questions in the provincial parliament in either language, and the courts, the provincial ones, work in either language. The same is basically true in Quebec, but the other way, with English being not official, but being used. In Federal court of course you can use either language (most criminal trials are federal, as we have a federal criminal code). Both languages have equal status in the federal parliament in Ottawa. Senior military officers must be bilingual.

    On the 'integrating' thing, that is not how we do stuff as much. the American national myth is the melting pot, ours is the so called 'cultural mosaic'. Probably neither is true…

    As energy policy is provincial and not federal I would worry more about Alberta than Ottawa…..

    It all seems rather unwieldily to people not from here, but it works pretty decently.

  • Matt97

    @dbrodbeck
    I am sorry if I gave the impression that in any way Canada does not work properly as I have no doubt it runs well. I was just commenting on the issue of Quebec and its aspirations for secession from Canada.

    I think Switzerland is really interesting place as no one is a citizen of Switzerland but a citizen of a particular Canton. The people vote for their representatives for their Canton and not for Switzerland.

    For another point India works ok even though they have 12 official national/regional languages so multi-language countries can work fairly well. I have never seen one but the ballot for a indian electron is supposed to be a sight as they usually have at least 4 languages on each ballot.

  • dbrodbeck

    No offense taken actually worry not.

    Yeah Switzerland is an odd place indeed. Depending on who you listen to, Canada may be a more decentralized federation than Switzerland.

  • Adalid

    I do not think a movement could happen at all. Only some Mexicans/Mexican-Americans would care and most Mexican would rather see those areas remain American. Roger was spot on in talking about how different Spanish-speaking nationalities are. Tom recognized it, albeit more confident that a revolution could take place.

    There are marked divisions that would prevent a unified group “taking back” a piece of land and some are simply quelled by time and a soothing of race relations.

    A good example of this is the national student group MEChA (Moviemiento Estudiantil Chicana(o) de Aztlan) who cited taking back land in their founding document (El Plan de Aztlan), however, it was a product of the time. Back in the 1960s, you have to remember there was extreme racism directed towards Mexicans, especially at the university level. An extreme disregard was met with an extreme response. While they were discriminated against by some Americans for being of Mexican descent, they were ostracized by Mexicans for not speaking Spanish.

    Fast-forward to a few years ago when the UCLA Bruin and Stanford Republicans student groups accused UCLA and Stanford's MEChA of racism, citing “El Plan de Aztlan”. The allegations were met with ridicule because the modern MEChA largely does community work and student outreach and is much less militant nowadays. As more sons and daughters of immigrants reached academia, the focus has shifted from defending one's heritage to getting more kids into college.

    My point is realistically the only thing that would unify Mexicans, Salvadoreans, Bolivians, etc. would be immigration reform. In fact it already has.

    Tom made a great point in talking about kids born in America to Mexican immigrants (i.e. me, Mexican-American/Chicano). We don't have roots in Mexico. I speak well in Spanish because my parents corrected me all the time, but most kids don't have that. It reminds me of a George Lopez joke that goes, “Here in the U.S. we're all Chicano, yeah, I'm a Chicano!” But down in Mexico, we're like, “Oh my god, people live in those shacks!”. I highly recommend his stand-up if you've only seen his mediocre TV show.

    I would go on about the use of Hispanic, Latino, etc., but I'm sure you've heard the argument for and against.

    Your discussion made me post for the first time since ep. 100.

  • techpriest

    Speaking of Lou Dobbs, could Tom & Roger please explain whats so great about CNN international? I was in switzerland on vacation in July and for 5 straight days CNN ran the same 2 storys (The President Zelaya/Honduras Case, and the Obama “Birth” case), with almost nothing new in-between. Back home in the UK (i was able to watch some UK news channels when i tracked down free wifi), there was all sorts of news being broadcast, and not just UK centric stuff, there were stories about EU, about China's Stimulus package, of the outlook for economic recovery etc. CNN international seemed to be a 2 track mind in that sense.

  • techpriest

    Indian Ballots do have multiple languages, as they are electronic, but have a heavy emphasis on symbols to cope with the many millions of voters unable to read or write.

  • acedtect

    Well, you should see CNN US then. It's worse. We essentially no longer have a usable news channel on TV in the US.

  • dbrodbeck

    CBC Newsworld is pretty good and I think you can get it on some US packages. They cover US stuff a lot (as Trudeau said, living next to the US is like sleeping with an elephant, even if it moves just a little it affects you). Plus, lots of hockey and CFL football highlights….

  • techpriest

    I have seen CBC over here in the uk from time to time, used to be available from the one uk cable provider, virgin media. Strangely, I remember it most because newsreaders would always say ( to produce a catch all intro ) “it's x o clock, y in Newfoundland”, it had some good content.

    Canada is also, to my knowledge, the only nation whose off-shoot of the British Whig/Liberal party remained centre-left and has been elected in recent times (Britains Liberals have not held power for 91 years, although remain a strong 3rd party, and Australias liberals have ended up on the right of the political spectrum, in a rare twist not normally experienced by so called ” Westminster off shoot liberals “). I wonder what would happen if staunch republicans and equally staunch democrats were reminded of their shared past through the Whig faction and the democratic-republican party (that sound you just heard was the head explosions of lou dobbs, every msnbc newscaster, and all of their fox counterparts)

  • dbrodbeck

    Yeah, I lived in Newfoundland for 6 years, it is in an odd time zone, GMT -3:30.

    Except for their (in the 80s) anti free trade stance, the Canadian Liberals are basically just a tad left of centre and fit with the standard model you mention. They are criticized for not having an ideology (not right or left) but then some see that as a good thing. Traditionally they are the party of immigrants, the middle class and Frncophones. Now the francophone thing has changed in recent years but polls show that Federalist Quebecois are coming back to the Libs from the Cons.

  • acedtect

    We used to get CBC as NewsWorld International but then Current bought that station and no more CBC for me.

  • techpriest

    Would it be fair to view the Quebec/confederation of Canada issue in a similar light to the (resurgent) issue of Scottish nationalism in the united kingdom?

  • dbrodbeck

    Yeah, I think that is a safe bet. Though, there is the whole thing about the Quiet Revolution in Quebec in the 1960s where the de facto rule of the Catholic Church was thrown out. There was certainly Nationalism before the Quiet revolution, but it was based in the church and in ethnicity. The sort of new nationalism post 1970 or so is at times almost like a replacement for religion in Quebec. It has myths and everything…

    I guess you could say it is further along here, there have been two referrenda, both of which the federalists won (happily, from my POV).

  • techpriest

    The British press has finally started to inform the general public over here about the lies and insults being thrown around by lobbyists & congressment about the NHS, with the gaurdian running a series of articles on the issue:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/nhs…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/200…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/11/n…

    As can be seen by the hundreds of comments on those pages, the myriad of corrections being forwarded by the British embassy to the capitol, and the general outrage being experienced by the generally Pro-NHS British public, these comments have not gone down well.

    Some of the comments being made are quite frankly absurd, and lies. These include Chuck Grassleys comment that being 77, Senator Ted Kennedy would not have been treated because he is “too old under englands system” (to paraphrase). This is the most ABSURD lie i've heard yet out of the USA Healthcare debate, The NHS routinely provides Cancer Care to the elderly, an uncle of mine recieved care at the age of 83, and the NHS never “bans” someone from recieving care on the grounds of Age. Hip Replacments are routinely given to those over 100 years old.

    The guardian articles lists more claims, juxtaposed with the truth:

    “The claim

    In England, anyone over 59 years of age cannot receive heart repairs, stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed – an anonymously authored, but widely circulated, email, largely sent to older voters

    The response

    Totally untrue. Growing numbers of patients over 65 with heart conditions are having surgery, including valve repairs and heart bypass surgery, says Professor Peter Weissberg, the British Heart Foundation's (BHF) medical director. For example, the average age at which people have a bypass operation has risen from 58 in 1991 to 66 in 2008.”

    Furthermore, claims that the NHS forces patients to submit to “Death Panels” to prove themselves worthy for healthcare are entirely false. As are claims that patients are not allowed to “top-up” their state provided healthcare with that given by private insurance (many state hospitals feature private wings for those with insurance, and patients whose expensive drugs are strangely out of the NHS's reach can easily use privately held insurance to obtain the drugs, while still recieving their NHS care in other area's).

    This of course completely ignores the fact that the bills currently being proposed are proposing nothing like a single-payer state run system like the NHS.

    I'd normally take a more balanced view than the one this post has, but quite frankly, i've had it up to here with american conservatives & republican congressmen insulting the NHS with no remorse. Fox news conveniently uses statistics on waiting lists from 2004, while ignoring the fact that since 2007, well over 90% of patients recieved operations or their treatment within 18 weeks of being referred by a local doctor, in most cases the persons GP. Republicans also conveninetly use healthcare statistics from 1991, which was under the Thatcher/major administration which critically underfunded the NHS and promoted private insurance.

    I'll just point out that the NHS spends just 8% of national GDP on healthcare, whereas the USA's system spends 16%, and that the average life expectancy is higher in the UK than the US, and that The World Health Organisation ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the US is in 37th place.

    The NHS is not flawless, far from it, but until conservatives and republicans start using actual facts and hold up the NHS as an example respectfully, utilising real evidence and real flaws, i will continue to support those that counter their arguements, and will be more than happy to see British ambassadors ferry yet more corrections to the Capitol (Granted, the Ambassadors have a tough position, they have to please the British public by correcting the many untruths being bandied about, while not getting dragged into the domestic political warfare currently taking place)

    PS: @ dbrodbeck , i know some comments have been made, but are you aware of similar insults & comments being made of Canada's healthcare system?

  • dbrodbeck

    @techpriest dude I am with you and I am REALLY tired of American Cons and Repubs saying this stuff. There is an ad running in the states where a woman from Ontario tells her story about having a “brain tumor” and how it was not operated on and she was put on a waiting list in Canada so she went to the states paid etc etc.

    The problems with this ad are numerous, but the big lie, is that she DID NOT HAVE A BRAIN TUMOR. She had a benign frakking cyst. I know that seems like a big deal etc, but you know, last year my Dad died of a brain tumor. WHen the symptoms presented themselves (a seizure) he was admitted immediately to hospital, he got treatment right away by some of the top neural oncologists in the world and was operated on by a neurologist that is quite well known (London ON is a great place to get sick, lots of good physicians, researchers there). He had an operation to remove part of the tumor just six weeks before his death. This operation was certainly not medically necessary, it simply made Dad's life a bit better, indeed almost normal, for the last few weeks of his life. The neurosurgeon met with me afterwards (as I speak “brain” I could sort of translate for my family) and I asked him if this operation, out of curiosity, would have been done in the States. He said (and he had worked in the US) probably not, as Dad now had a pre existing condition (the tumor) and to do it would have cost us about 70 K.

    Dad got his last few weeks, and the week before he died was almost normal, it was great.

    Our system here is also far from flawless, but I am really goddamned tired of people who know nothing of it (or even worse, people that do know about it) trot us out as some sort of third world or Warsaw Pact country from the 1970s.

    Well, at least your ambassador does not have to also deal with the myth that the 9/11 terrorists came in through Canada….

  • techpriest

    Who started that myth? I've never heard of it, but on first sight it seems….ridiculous. The fact that Canada & The USA share the worlds longest undefended border is to be celebrated, a sign of friendship, peace, mutual understanding. I remember watching Stephen Frys recent TV voyage to America, where he meets several Americans concerned with the lack of defence on the border. While at first an “undefended” border might seem like a bad thing, in truth i think its a plus, the amount of trade it has facilitated between the USA & Canada is a testament to that. It's a shame crossing that border is not as easy as it once was.

  • dbrodbeck

    Apparently it comes from reports by two Boston newspapers according to this story:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A…

  • Matt97

    The thing that astonishes me is that the US public actually still listen to people that have lied to them previously. President Bush lied to them and he did it knowingly and afterwards the public knew it too but there was no punishment for it. What he lied about was the connection of Iraq to Al qaeda, and the WMDs in Iraq.

    Given that there was no punishment, no public shaming for the president why does anyone expect that there will be truth telling occurring from any of the politicians. The really incredible thing is that the American public still believes them.

  • techpriest

    Well, i'm happy to see that a general backlash against the untruths and insults being directed at the NHS has emerged :)

    A recent BBC article shows brits are not taking the criticism lying down, with NHS support being a big topic on Twitter (#WelovetheNHS)

    Particular ire has been thrown at the suggestion that the NHS would have failed Stephen Hawking (a falsehood that ignores the fact that hawking has stated in interviews that he would not be around if not for the NHS.

  • techpriest

    BBC summed it up best:

    “Most seemed to reflect the feeling that despite its shortcomings, the British remain defiantly proud of the health service in the face of transatlantic criticism.”

    Links related to the backlash are as follows:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/81980…

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_re_eu…

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/articl…

  • techpriest

    I didnt expect this, and the backlash appears to be snowballing, but it appears that now Gordon Brown (and his wife, Sarah Brown) have got involved in the Twitter campaign defending the NHS, and in an unusual move, Westminster has directly issued instructions to the US embassy informing diplomats to “correct all incorrect or misleading statements”.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/13/s…

  • techpriest

    Time to sum up this whole fiasco, i think.

    1: American Right begins campaign against Healthcare reforms, Ads under the “Conservatives For Patients Rights” banner hold up Canada & The UK as examples of what can go wrong with nationalised universal Healthcare- A few people (like me) who are in touch with US politics get angry, but largely, the debate remains confined to the USA.

    2: As Congress Takes Its summer recess, and town-hall meetings begin, and grow increasingly bitter, with claims about the NHS reaching new highs of ridiculousness (particularly the comments made by Chuck Grassley related to Senator Ted Kennedy, and the various comments made by Glenn Beck on Fox News), The UK Embassy in Washington begins quietly attempting to correct politicians, while seeking to not get dragged into the debate. The Guardian, a well established British Broadsheet newspaper, publishes a single (relatively low ranking) article on the issue:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/nhs…

    The Article Draws Hundreds of (generally) pro-NHS comments, word begins to spread…

    3. Other Newspapers, and News organisations (such as the BBC) begin to pick up the story. In disgust at the percieved injustice, Graham Linehan (creator of “The IT Crowd” and “Father Ted) creates the hastag “#welovetheNHS”, and attempts to mobilise followers to use it:

    http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/52120,news,how-fa…

    4: The movement is a success, and thousands of Pro-NHS comments flood in as (to quote the Gaurdian), Britons “rush to defend” the NHS:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/aug…

    5. With the tag remaining a trending topic for days, the movement snowballs, with the Prime Minister breaking constitutional convention and publicly showing his support:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8199615.stm

    6. A comment made by Investors Business Daily suggesting that the NHS would have left Stephen Hawking to die (ignoring the fact that Stephen Hawking is British, and has been treated by the NHS) fuels the fire further. A clip surfaces of Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan, publicly calling the NHS a “60 year mistake” on Glenn Becks Fox show- taking the debate to a domestic level in the UK, with Labour (centre-left, creator and traditional care-taker of the NHS) using the clip as “proof” that the Conservative Party (Centre-Right, Historically hostile towards the NHS) has not changed its ways. Meanwhile, anger grows within the NHS itself that not enough is being done to defend its reputation in the USA.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8200817.stm

    7. In response to the above growing resentment, ministers, and officials at the DH (Department of Health) revolt against traditional convention (Constitutional Convention dictates that British officials attempt to stay out US domestic affairs, even when UK institutions are implicated, this has held true before, for example in the previous attempt at Health Reform in the 1990's under Clinton, and over internet gambling disputes), and start publicly defending the NHS. The DH issues dossiers refuting claims made by the American Right and anti-reform groups, The respective Health ministers (For the UK, for the Welsh devolved government, and for the Scottish devolved government) also refute claims, Unison (a major trade union with a large chunk of member in the health sector) started to distribute information to its sister Unions in the US, and Lord Darzi- a doctorand a former Health minister in the incumbent government, starts taking interviews with US media in an effort to publicly rebuke the claims:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/14/m…

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125029944780633…

    That sums it up really. Several commentators have pointed out that the main reason this fiasco erupted as it has is, in previous debates, anti-reformers could make comments in the knowledge that the news would never filter back to the country implicated, but since that news DID filter back in this case, a transatlantic incident has ensued.

  • techpriest

    Just spotted this, the incident appears to have, at least tentatively, spread to Canada & Australia, with Canadian & Australian twitter users beginning to use the tag “WeloveMedicare”:

    http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23weloveMedicare

  • Matt97

    The really interesting thing is that none of the politicians are been called to account for knowingly lying.

    Within the Westminister system anyone making lies in Parliament can be held in contempt of Parliament. Its like been in contempt at court.

    Its funny that the highest place in the USA is not Congress or the Senate but the Courts as that is the only place that ensures people tell the truth or at least not lying.