In a way, Paul Martin in my Beeeaaatch.
An ongoing debate which seems to be spreading like a virus throughout Sara's blog has really had my interest over the past while. It all started with an American (who still remains Anonymous) who read a quick post by Sara comparing the president to a groundhog in the beginning of February. Anonymous posted a pretty angry comment in response calling our leaders clowns, and the rest of the world a bunch of toenail chewers who do nothing while the states , backed by its people "with American confidence and some arrogance", do something while we don't.
As you can imagine this response produced many a comment, including from myself. Well only early on anyway. Sara has an uncanning knack for beating me to posting what I am thinking, only she seems to say things better than I could have ever said them myself.
And with every new comment there was more to argue. It seems now that some records are being set straight though.
One of the opinions which bothered me the most was the notion of countries other than the states not contributing to the worlds problems, while last I checked we give around three times the percent GNP to foreign aid contributions than the states. (Not to mention Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands who double Canada, and Saudi Arabia who doubles even them.) Not only that but what limited military we do have is spread throughout the world on peace keeping missions working with the UN. I could go on.
Now the debate has slowly matured a bit. The topic of who is to blame if a government is doing things you don't agree with has come up, and there has been less bashing of spelling mistakes. This brings about an interesting topic because how you feel about this I think speaks more than anything about your government and it's people. (no not about spelling) It all comes down to how much power you feel you have over the decisions you're country makes as a whole. I think to ultimately be successful as a country its people have to feel that they have enough power to influence it. If you feel you have no power, and it is difficult to get any, than unless you are ambitious enough you will be forced to trust the people in charge. In a setting as large as a country, you only know of you're leader what you are told. Very few people really know Paul Martin, or George Bush, or any other political leaders and their council. So how exactly can you trust them? It's no secret these people say all kinds of things that won't come true to get elected. This is why you need to have power, and more importantly feel that you have the power to make changes. If you have taken economics you know that money only has value because it is perceived to have value, otherwise it is worthless. I have to admit I breathed a sigh of relief when we decided not to go to war, mostly because it reminded me that we as Canadians do still have this power.
The other point I would like to make is something I'm not sure many Canadians, or Americans are aware of. (Yes I know we all live in North America, its just a term we commonly use here, and it sounds better than United Statiens.) Most industrialized countries, including Canada are large contributors to the manufacturing of the hardware used by the states to go to war. In fact a lot of it would not be possible were it not for these foreign contributions.
I have worked in research and development fields for over five years and in aerospace alone a great deal of the manufacturing and problem solving occurs in Canada by our engineers and workers. The states recently upped their military funding and guess who in the end will get most of it? Even the joint strike fighter, the most deadly fighter yet was a joint project including Europe and Canada, that's where the joint part came from. With the states now defying the wishes of the rest of the world more often, there are more and more moral implications to accepting this money. I guess everyone has their price.
Finally, I can't help but wonder as people become more aware of the global perspective with things such as the internet (case and point), will they want their products to be sort of "peace approved", like an environmentally approved sticker. What would be left to qualify? Who would set the standards? A lot of things would have to be rethought. Can't buy a GE light bulb, they make bombs. Don't get the cheap wallmart t-shirt, was made by someone who's wages were deemed unacceptable. An AK-47? Uh, no. Hey where did the dollar store go? Wallmart? (I hate wallmart). Hey what happened? I'm paying slightly more for stuff now and other peoples quality of life has been greatly approved, and I'm not wasting money on cheap plastic crap that only takes up room in drawers and shelves. Oh and look I am buying less fast food because real food is cheaper and better for me, and being overweight is no longer an epidemic.
Ranting is fun.
As you can imagine this response produced many a comment, including from myself. Well only early on anyway. Sara has an uncanning knack for beating me to posting what I am thinking, only she seems to say things better than I could have ever said them myself.
And with every new comment there was more to argue. It seems now that some records are being set straight though.
One of the opinions which bothered me the most was the notion of countries other than the states not contributing to the worlds problems, while last I checked we give around three times the percent GNP to foreign aid contributions than the states. (Not to mention Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands who double Canada, and Saudi Arabia who doubles even them.) Not only that but what limited military we do have is spread throughout the world on peace keeping missions working with the UN. I could go on.
Now the debate has slowly matured a bit. The topic of who is to blame if a government is doing things you don't agree with has come up, and there has been less bashing of spelling mistakes. This brings about an interesting topic because how you feel about this I think speaks more than anything about your government and it's people. (no not about spelling) It all comes down to how much power you feel you have over the decisions you're country makes as a whole. I think to ultimately be successful as a country its people have to feel that they have enough power to influence it. If you feel you have no power, and it is difficult to get any, than unless you are ambitious enough you will be forced to trust the people in charge. In a setting as large as a country, you only know of you're leader what you are told. Very few people really know Paul Martin, or George Bush, or any other political leaders and their council. So how exactly can you trust them? It's no secret these people say all kinds of things that won't come true to get elected. This is why you need to have power, and more importantly feel that you have the power to make changes. If you have taken economics you know that money only has value because it is perceived to have value, otherwise it is worthless. I have to admit I breathed a sigh of relief when we decided not to go to war, mostly because it reminded me that we as Canadians do still have this power.
The other point I would like to make is something I'm not sure many Canadians, or Americans are aware of. (Yes I know we all live in North America, its just a term we commonly use here, and it sounds better than United Statiens.) Most industrialized countries, including Canada are large contributors to the manufacturing of the hardware used by the states to go to war. In fact a lot of it would not be possible were it not for these foreign contributions.
I have worked in research and development fields for over five years and in aerospace alone a great deal of the manufacturing and problem solving occurs in Canada by our engineers and workers. The states recently upped their military funding and guess who in the end will get most of it? Even the joint strike fighter, the most deadly fighter yet was a joint project including Europe and Canada, that's where the joint part came from. With the states now defying the wishes of the rest of the world more often, there are more and more moral implications to accepting this money. I guess everyone has their price.
Finally, I can't help but wonder as people become more aware of the global perspective with things such as the internet (case and point), will they want their products to be sort of "peace approved", like an environmentally approved sticker. What would be left to qualify? Who would set the standards? A lot of things would have to be rethought. Can't buy a GE light bulb, they make bombs. Don't get the cheap wallmart t-shirt, was made by someone who's wages were deemed unacceptable. An AK-47? Uh, no. Hey where did the dollar store go? Wallmart? (I hate wallmart). Hey what happened? I'm paying slightly more for stuff now and other peoples quality of life has been greatly approved, and I'm not wasting money on cheap plastic crap that only takes up room in drawers and shelves. Oh and look I am buying less fast food because real food is cheaper and better for me, and being overweight is no longer an epidemic.
Ranting is fun.
posted by Scott McCarthy at
11:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home