Blogue||Nous sommes - noussommes.ca

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a historic health-care bill late Sunday that will make coverage possible for more than 30 million uninsured Americans and end discrimination by insurance companies against people with existing medical conditions.

Legislators voted 219 to 212 in favour of the landmark legislation that has been debated on Capitol Hill for a year. The bill, previously passed by the Senate, didn’t receive a single vote from Republicans. It will now go to President Barack Obama for his signing into law, possibly as early as Tuesday.

“It is with great humility and with great pride that we tonight will make history for our country and progress for the American people,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during her closing argument for health-care reform. “Just think, we will be joining those who established social security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans.”

Following the vote, Obama said, “This is what change looks like.

“We proved we are a people capable of doing big things and tackling our biggest challenges,” he said. “We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people —still works for the people.”

Overhauling of the health-care system is the most ambitious U.S. social program since Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society reforms of the tumultuous 1960s and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal that emerged from the trauma of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Resolving differences

The passage of the legislation was made possible by a last-minute deal struck earlier in the day between the White House and House Democrats who were holding out over abortion concerns.

The White House said in a statement that Obama would issue an executive order after passage of the health-care bill that would reaffirm current law banning federal spending on abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s life.

Moments after the statement, leading abortion foe Bart Stupak, a Democrat congressman from Michigan, and six other anti-abortion Democrats said they would back the health-care bill.

“We’re well past 216,” Stupak told reporters, referring to the number of votes required to pass the bill in the House of Representatives.

The legislation would extend coverage to an estimated 32 million uninsured Americans, bar insurers from denying coverage on the basis of existing medical conditions and cut federal deficits by an estimated $138 billion US over a decade.

Congressional analysts estimate the cost of the two bills combined would be $940 billion over 10 years.

Amid talk of success for Obama’s efforts to expand health coverage to the uninsured, Republicans resolutely opposed the bill.

The Articles of Confederation And Perpetual Union, lived a short life because Americans disapproved of a strong central government. The articles eventually paved the way for the Constitution. As for the theory of strong central government, Alexander Hamilton was to eventually take up that cause with great skill and intelligence. Much to Thomas Jefferson’s dismay.

In total, there were 13 articles but for our purposes here, Article XI is of note:

Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Golly gee. Canada mentioned. Albeit in an annexation capacity. Wonder if the proponents of the North American Union know about this. I further wonder if Michael Ignatieff will sign on to it. Didn’t the Rhinoceros Party want to sell Canada to the United States in its hey-day?

In July, I visited Washington D.C. on a casual political pilgrimage. It was the only place to have a chat with Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. Abe and Tommy were just fab with their advice and insights.

Washington is a most intriguing city. Thanks to the convergence of Virginia and Maryland, its urban planning is confusing. My GPS, a toy I’m not too fond of (I’d rather rely on my brain. It rarely fails me…debateable of course), had a hard time making sense of it. It took me 30 minutes to find my Best Western hotel in Georgetown.

We finally settled in and began to immediately absorb the gentle southern sensibility Washington exuded. I asked a few natives whether Maryland was “officially” a Southern state. They couldn’t answer me in the definite, what, with it being the capital and a “border” state during the Civil War.

There was too much to see and do in just one day and a half. We decided to take a trolley across down. It was the only realistic way to get a glimpse of the city. On and off we went the trolley and it was worth it. For next time, we know what and where we want to focus.

One of those spots is Arlington National Cemetery. Many Canadians probably never heard of it and if they have it was recently when it was announced Ted Kennedy (scratches head) was going to be buried there. Still scratching.

Washington and Canada have a special connection I discovered. Nationalists here, predictably, take a twisted pride in the fact we (well, technically the British) burned down the White House in 1812. However, on our trolley journey along Pennsylvania Ave., we discovered Canada’s embassy was located there as opposed to Embassy Row to “mark the special bond between the two countries” as the guide put it.

Makes sense to me. There is a special connection between Canada and the United States.

Arlington Cemetery, too, commemorates Canada. Specifically, its  military heritage. While Canadian soldiers aren’t buried on Arlington’s hallowed grounds, our nation and flag are. It turns out, Americans fought under the Canadian flag during World War I and Mackenzie King, the long-serving Canadian Prime Minister, suggested in 1925 a memorial be built to remember this and President Calvin Coolidge obliged.

This became known as the Canadian Cross of Sacrifice. The monument was designed by Canadian Sir Reginald Bloomfield.

Canada has a proud military history and heritage. I visited the monuments dedicated to Canadians in Dieppe. France and the Netherlands, two nations liberated by Canada, have never forgotten our efforts and sacrifices.

Sadly, Canadians have. We’ve let our military pitifully whither and wallow into obscurity.

It’s a shame.

Presumptuous title I know. But let’s face it: The average person has never thought to check out Felix d’Herelle.

More than just street names, these scientific minds stand on research guard for thee and are significant figures from our past. They’re people who ensured Canada was represented at the table of great ideas and contributions to history and mankind.

Here we go shall we?

Reginald Fessenden: The Father of Radio Broadcasting. Fessenden was born in Quebec and actually worked for Thomas Edison at one point.

From the first link titled, ‘Unsung Hero’:

“If Canadian radio archives do not contain as much material as they should, there is one historical event well documented - the achievement of Guglielmo Marconi, an Italian who made radio history by transmitting the letter “s” in Morse code from Cornwall, England to a receiving station on Signal Hill overlooking St. John’s Harbour in Newfoundland on December 12, 1901.

But an equally historic event, the achievement of a brilliant Canadian inventor, Reginald Aubrey Fessenden, is generally ignored and largely unknown. On December 24, 1906, at 9 P.M. eastern standard time, Reginald Fessenden transmitted human voices from Brant Rock near Boston, Massachusetts to several ships at sea owned by the United Fruit Company...”

Charles Huggins: The pride of beautiful Nova Scotia (and an American citizen), Huggins won the Noble Prize for Physiology/Medicine in 1966 “for discovering hormones that could be used to control the spread of some cancers...” (Wiki)

James Collip: Was a brilliant Biochemical researcher from Ontario before embarking on a great medical journey. While Banting and MacLeod are recognized as having discovered insulin (subsequently winning a Nobel prize), Collip along with Charles Best were unrecognized instrumental parts in the development process. Best and Banting were looking for ways to treat diabetes but couldn’t purify the (bovine) pancreatic extract. Collip was recruited by MacLeod to solve this problem and he succeeded in making insulin usable.

Simon Newcomb: Was a self-taught polymath with no formal training and a Canadian-American astronomer/mathematician originally born in Nova Scotia. “Newcomb set to work on the measurement of the position of the planets as an aid to navigation, becoming increasingly interested in theories of planetary motion.” (Wiki)

John Plaskett: Born in Ontario, Plaskett “…made significant contributions to the study of star pairs, known as binary stars…In 1922, he discovered a massive binary star system, which was the heaviest on record for many years - a discovery which gained him international respect as an astronomer.” (Canadian Astronomy Education)

Oswald Avery: Yet another native Nova Scotian, Avery later emigrated to the United States where the bulk of his work as a molecular biologist took place. He’s considered to be a pioneer in immunochemistry “but he is best known for his discovery in 1944 with his co-worker Maclyn McCarty that DNA is the material of which genes and chromosomes are made. Previously, hereditary information (genes) was thought to be stored in cells and in protein molecules.” (Bio-Medicine)

Felix d’Herelle - Like Newcomb d’Herelle was a self-taught individual and a microbiologist born in Montreal. He co-discovered bacteriophages.

Colin MacLeod - Born in Nova Scotia and a Canadian-American biologists, he’s recognized as the founder of molecular biology and researched the role of DNA in bacteria.

Norman Bowen - A native of Kingston, Ontario, Bowen helped to establish a discipline that brings together chemistry and geology known as petrology.

John Tuzo Wilson - From Ottawa, Wilson was a geophysicist who pioneered the study of plate tectonics and was internationally acclaimed for his work, theories and research.

Walter Zinn - Zinn was a physicist from Berlin, Ontario before it was renamed Kitchener during WWII. He worked with Enrico Fermi’s team on the Manhattan Project. “Zinn released the world’s first self-sustaining nuclear reaction by withdrawing a control rod from the world’s first nuclear reactor in 1942 at the University of Chicago.”

William Giauque - Though born in Niagara Fallas, Giauque is a Canadian-American who won the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 1949 for his work on the properties matter at temperatures close to absolute zero or third law of thermodynamics.

Boy, is Obamacare getting hot or what? Have you seen footage of some of these Townhall meetings springing up across the country? The government is asserting this is all a conspiracy driven by the insurance companies who have too much of a vested interest in letting health care reform take place. Personally, I think the White House has lost its mind. When a government speaks openly about conspiracies and actively asks people to spy and snitch on one another well…

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson, 1788.

Obviously, Canada is in the middle of the debate. Yay! Attention! Despite some inaccuracies, I like this video because these guys actually secretly filmed their experiences within the system here. Be forewarned, it’s from Pjamas Media - a conservative media outlet. Ooooo, so scared, mommy!

Both sides are presenting their side of the story, and while each make valid points, I still feel the left paints waaayyyy to nice a picture and under estimates just how difficult it is to run such a massive operation while the right paints waaayyy to scary a picture.

All I know is, A) good luck in trying to control costs and B) the Canadian system IS under severe strain. These facts are well-documented and can be seen in plain view when you visit a hospital.

The video is valuable for one reason: It takes a secret camera inside clinics in Quebec. The picture is stark inside a semi-private clinic imagine public! See, I told you Mike we should have done this years ago when I suggested it.

Like most videos of this sort, it suffers from some factual errors. But still far less egregious and outrageous than anything Michael Moore puts out about the subject relating to Canada.

For example, they interview someone about his experiences with dermatology. Who cares? Like dentistry, dermatologists have private practices therefore they’re irrelevant to the discussion.

An important distinction is not made: As someone (Paul say hello) keenly point out to me, these are semi-private clinics. Not public hospitals. Public hospitals never close. Just as importantly, the Quebec system is not indicative of what goes on in other provinces since health care falls under provincial jurisdiction. For instance, Quebec allows private clinics to operate while Ontario doesn’t.This leads to different results.

These are just a couple I spotted. I feel the video was at its best while they were inside the clinics. Nonetheless, it still makes some valid points.

Generally speaking, despite provincial control, nationally we all experience, long wait times, rising expenditures, drops in overall quality of care, lack of accessibility to GPs and advanced equipment, experiencing doctor and nursing shortages and fiscal mismanagement. Canada’s performance in the OECD isn’t exactly something to write home about either.

None of this can and should be disputed. If we do, then all we do is defer to another time to make meaningful changes in enhancing and improving our frustrating Canadian public system.

What kind of changes? Man, that’s the million dollar question. So far, the best we’ve come up with is to expand private services to help alleviate strain on the public side.

Rather than sit back and take glee that the Americans want to have some type of universal care - has anyone read the bill? - maybe we should take this opportunity and assess our system properly and with conviction.

Which begs these questions: Is government responsible for providing care to all its citizens? Are there other ways to get care to the most vulnerable (children and elderly)? Is it feasible to run a universal system over time?

The Toronto garbage strike is really getting, erm, smelly. Public opinion is clearly against the union on this one. There are even calls for, gulp, privatizing the garbage collection sector.  Why not? I always say, “You’re not happy? Ok, let’s see how the market values and pays you!” Call my bluff. Ga’head.

This sad situation reminds me of when SAQ workers (Quebec’s monopolistic entity that runs the  alcohol racket, uh, business) went on strike during the Christmas holidays a couple of years back. I’ll never forget the t-shirts strikers wore. It read: “Boss, tu ris de nous autres!”

And then they turned around and mocked consumers as we had to wait in ridiculously long lines. What peeved me, while clinging to a bottle of Campari and Averna, was I had no choice but to fricken grin and accept it. I couldn’t voice my displeasure by taking my business elsewhere.  Why is the government involved in alcohol or casinos and lottery gambling for that matter anyway?

I digress.

At this point, the streets of Toronto are becoming a national embarrassment.

Following his two goal performance in a 3-1 victory for Italy over the United States at the Confederations Cup soccer tournament, Giuseppe Rossi finds himself a topic of discussion among American sports writers and commentators.

You see, Rossi is originally from Joisey (also referred to New Jersey) who happens to have dual American and Italian citizenship who decide to play soccer for Italy.

The 22 year-old Rossi is such a special talent several European teams have expressed interest in him. After starting his professional career at FC Parma in Italy, Manchester United acquired his services until they sold him to Spanish club Villareal where he currently plays. Count ‘em, that’s three major soccer nations who saw something in him.

It wasn’t long before he caught the eyes of the Azzurri - Italy’s national side - and he’s been representing them at every level since 2003.

For its part, USA soccer has come under some criticism for not trying harder to keep him within the American system. In fairness, Rossi and his family were committed to Italy, so I’m not sure how much then-coach Bruce Arena could have done. Still, he could, should have tried, no?

Does anyone have a problem with Rossi’s decision for choosing Italy over the United States? I don’t and in the case of Rossi, the American media doesn’t either. Put it you this way, who would you choose if you had the choice between a soccer powerhouse like Italy or USA? Not to disparage the U.S. program. The United States have steadily remained a top 15 soccer nation in recent years.

By this point this example should remind Canadians sports fans of a similar situation with Owen Hargreaves. Hargreaves was somehow overlooked by Team Canada but was good enough to be signed by Germany’s Bayern Munich - one of the world’s biggest and successful clubs. His development there eventually earned him a spot on England’s national side and represented them at the 2006 World Cup.  I didn’t see Hargreaves’ decision as anything but a wise move.

Jonathan de Guzman is another stand out talent born in Canada who decided to play for another country. This time, the nation in question is yet another great soccer nation: The Netherlands. His club stint was with Feyenoord and he made his international debut for the Under-21 Dutch national team in 2008.

The history of soccer has been filled with similar cases. Great players have often played for nations other than their place of birth albeit each for their own reasons. Alfredo di Stefano, one of the greatest players in history, was born in Argentina and ended up playing for Spain. Omar Sivori, also Argentinean, played for Italy. Brazilian player Alessandro dos Santos (Alex) represented Japan. Even the great Juste Fontaine wasn’t born in France proper but rather in Morocco. But that brings into question former colonies of imperial powers. My point is that Rossi and Hargreaves are hardly alone as these precious few selected examples show.

And it doesn’t stop at soccer.

In hockey, Brett Hull, like de Guzman, was ludicrously called a “traitor” for choosing to play for the Team USA back in the 1980s. His situation was a little different. A marginal player early in his career, he knew he would never crack a Canadian line-up knee-deep in talent. Team USA offered him a spot in 1986 and he took it. By 1989, Hull was on his way to becoming one of the most prolific scorers in the history of the NHL.

Pro heavyweight champion Lennox Lewis decided to box under the British flag even after winning a gold medal for Canada at the 1988 Olympics in Seoul. Tennis player Greg Rusedski also bolted for the UK.

When it comes to sports, is it right to hold back an athlete in the name of nationality especially if that nation simply can’t offer anything?

In the case of soccer in particular, North America is simply not the best place to be. If Europe comes knocking, they have players at “buon giorno, bonjour, guten tag, and hello”.

“In our modern eagerness to be tolerant, we have come to tolerate things which no society can tolerate and remain healthy.” Brian Cleeve, 1938.

Did you hear about the ethics and religious cultural course (well, debate is a strong word. Did you expect being consulted?) and its aim to make us all tolerant and transcendent souls?

I have nothing against the course itself (you’re reading a post by a guy who feels “Humanities” courses have great merit) but I don’t see the point in paternalistically forcing private schools to comply - even if taught alongside religious courses. Furthermore, if parents don’t want it taught to their kids that’s their decision.

Which gets to the heart of my point: what happened to free choice?

Whenever the government (with the aid of intellectual masters) acts as a “progressive” agent I always treat it with a healthy scepticism. After all, is this not a society and government that held “reasonable accommodations” hearings and still wages its own private and petty war against the English language? Never mind about the poor state of the French language and the difficulties with “integration” in our classes.

I wasn’t sure what to make of the course itself until UQAM Professor Micahel Schleiffer recently offered his defense of the course in the Montreal Gazette. Here are some excerpts and my middling thoughts:

“A battle is raging around the world, between the vast majority of people who strive for moderation and universal values that transcend culture and religion, against fanatics and extremists of all sorts. Attacks on Quebec’s new Ethics and Religious Cultures course are helping the cause of the extremists.”

Really? I didn’t realize having a differing opinion makes you an attacking extremist. My interpretation of this passage is the world is concretely divided between “open-minded free thinkers” and “close minded enslaved sloths”.

However, is it possible, some “open minded” individuals are against not the course itself but the fact it A) trumps the parents authority (an all-too disturbing trend in Canada) and B) removes free choice from the equation?

Wasn’t President Bush derided for his “us against them” depiction of global politics in 2001?

“This course, obligatory in all Quebec schools, introduces students to the major religions and is designed to help them to deal with ethical issues independently of specific religious instruction.”

There it is. That word. Obligatory. Why must everything be “compulsory” and “obligatory”. We’re like a bunch of psychopaths. Incidentally, I once dated a girl who was Zoastroarian. It didn’t work out since my rigid Catholicism kept getting in the way. Gee, I wish I had the ethics course to make me “tolerant”!

He goes on to assure us “relativism” will not pollute our students but then he says two conflicting things,”

“…As professors, we often have to confront the university student’s view that “it’s all a matter of opinion” or “it’s all relative…”

Fair enough. Although, one can argue it is vulnerable to relativism. Can you really teach this course from a neutral bias?

But then:

“That student or child might be looking, mistakenly, for the one “right” or “correct” answer, a quest inappropriate in the context of a discussion about moral values, choices, or dilemmas.”

I’m sure I’m missing something here. “Inappropriate”? Mistakenly”? Doesn’t this sound a lot like relativism in that there are “no absolutes”?

I don’t know but from what I’ve observed some people do have moral clarity (whether you like them or not) and stick by them.

Then he gets all rhetorically goofy:

“We want children to understand about honesty, respect, responsibility and co-operation, and to see the importance of personal virtues including consideration, generosity and kindness.”

Is he insinuating religious classes (who by the way are more universal than given credit for) or parents are incapable of imparting these values? Heck, even Sesame Street covered all these bases.

If, with this piece, Professor Schleiffer (and there were other parts of the article that are up for debate) was hoping to enlighten little extremists like me, I remain in the dark.

He shouldn’t feel bad. Tolerance is a tricky thing. It’s called a FREE SOCIETY.

Naturally, geography and history plays a vital role in shaping societies and cultures. Canada is so busy racking its brain attempting to define itself in writing (we live vicariously through it these days) it forgets about the heritage staring right back at it.

Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberat and Northwest Territories

Canada’s sense of history is often (and justifiably) criticized; especially when the CBC publishes its infantile”top” Canadians list.

However, many Canadians are proud of this land’s natural beauty and Unesco agrees with its World Heritage project since most of its 15 properties protected by Unesco are of the natural variety (valleys, cliffs, etc.) as opposed to cultural (buildings, cities etc.). By contrast, the majority of sites protected in Italy and Spain, who lead the list with 43 and 40 sites respectively, are cultural. For example, the entire city of Verona. In fact, cultural sites dominate the list.

North America’s breakdown is naturally, well, weighed towards nature. Nine of Canada’s 15 sites are natural. In the United States, 12 of 20 and 25 of Mexico’s 29 sites are natural.

Other countries of interest: China (37), France and Germany (33), United Kingdom and India  (27), Russia (23), Australia, Brazil and Greece (17), Sweden (14).