That’s 'cause folks from Saskatoon know enough to try to avoid Toronto.
The CanaDoper Café (2012 edition of The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread.)
Congratulations, Sweden’s junior hockey team. We didn’t beat Russia, but you did.
Very kind of you, and I think Sweden was very deserving.
In some ways, I bet it feels OK for team Canada to win a Bronze, rather than lose a Gold. Sounds strange, I know.
Not strange at all, sir.
The thing about the way these tournaments work is that if you win a bronze, you end the tournament with a medal after winning. If you win a silver, you end the tournament with a medal after losing. To a dedicated athlete, winning is a wonderful feeling and losing is like a punch in the gut. So of course, the bronze medal winner always feels better just by virtue of not having that gut-punched feeling. Furthermore, people tend to think of silver and bronze as more or less equivalent consolation prizes - at least to me, there’s WINNING, winning something less than that, and not winning at all; silver and bronze are nice to win but equally so. So rather than losing your shot at the gold and settling for a consolation prize, the bronze medal winners won a consolation prize and avoiding winning nothing at all, a huge relief.
Remember in 2010 Olympic hockey tournament? The Americans looked like their puppies had just been run over; the bronze medallists looked thrilled. It’s quite understandable; the Americans had just, like minutes before, lost something. They were being given a medal they had already earned as an absolute minimum. The bronze guys had most recently won something.
We didn’t go to the game, but apparently most of the stands were cheering for Sweden in the game. Our game against Russia was lost by one goal, and the Swedes beat Russia by one goal - it sounds like Canada, Sweden, and Russia were very evenly matched this year.
New thread in GD: Should Canadian First Nations be granted the power to banish their own members? If such a banishment power is granted to First Nations, should this power also be granted to all municipalities in Canada? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14640508#post14640508
I’ve noted that news story this week, and I was wondering how that will affect things.
That is hysterical, Sunspace. 
It’s kinda weird to have a small superiority complex after decades of feeling hopeless ($.55 dollar and all), eh?
On the other hand, we’re still the mouse sleeping with the elephant, and a couple of more elephant farts and we’re asphyxiated basically.
One more salient point: one of the reasons we, in Canada, have been able to invest in health care, as opposed to the military, is because our friend and ally to the south chose to do the opposite. We know that the US would never allow anything to happen to Canada, and therefore we let our military dwindle while they continued to invest.
Canada is finally, after maybe 40 years, starting to re-tool, but we owe a lot of our standard of living to the US. Don’t kid yourselves.
I’ve heard this argument made before and it’s never made sense to me.
Precisely what marginal expenditure did Canada NOT make that it would have had to make if the U.S. had had lower defense spending? What defense threat did we face that we would have had a practical response to in the absence of American military power?
From 1946 to 1989 our primary defensive concern was the Soviet Union - but there isn’t any practical marginal difference between what we spent and what we could have spent without a United States. The Americans did not spend any money, not so much as a nickel, on any practical defense of Canadian territory. And it would be absurd to think Canada could have replaced the United States in presenting the USSR with opposition in strategic and conventional arms on a global level.
Canada is not like South Korea, a country that legitimately had a military threat the USA invested time, money and blood in protecting them from. We were threatened, directly, by absolutely no one; we faced only the general concern of Soviet influence, which wasn’t pointed straight at us so much as it was western Europe and various other places. Had the U.S. cut its defense budget - which to be honest they could have done without much practical effect anyway, IMHO - it wouldn’t have changed the calculus of Canadian defense spending one bit. We could not have possibly afforded a strategic nuclear force of substantial size, which was the main benefit of being in NATO. We faced no serious conventional threat - the Soviets had no plans to invade Baffin Island.
What money, exactly, did we save? Would we have built carrier fleets or a whole bunch of ICBMs?
Furthermore, I must again point out, as has been pointed out hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times, that Canada does not spend more than the United States on health care. The U.S. spends an absolute assload of money on Medicaid and Medicare. By some estimates, the U.S. spends more public money on public healthcare than any other industrialized nation. The notion that we are choosing medicine over weapons and the USA is doing the opposite simply is not borne out by the facts.
I understand your point about “what defense threat did we face” but there’s got to be a logical expression missing that says “what defense threat might we have faced if we didn’t have the US on our side?”
If the US wasn’t a major power, on our side, and had let their military stagnate or diminish, where would that leave Canada?
With oceans on three sides and a huge-ass friendly nation on the other. The only nation on the planet that has the logistical capacity to invade Canada with force sufficient to defeat our relatively budget-priced military is the US itself (possibly the Soviet Union at its peak, but Russia’s current navy is a pale shadow of that force). The only nations on the planet that can pose a non-invasion military threat to Canada are those with nuclear missiles. The only thing we give up by not spending more on our military is a lessened ability to militarily intervene overseas.
In all due respect, I don’t understand this post at all.
It’s full of double negatives. I tried translating and can’t. I’ll try tomorrow, without the 6 beers.
It means that by spending less on our military, we have less ability to duke it out overseas.
RickJay is correct. Leafan, prior to your edit, I believe you were asking for a cite concerning comparative health care expenditures. Here they are: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5456070&postcount=10
I guess we would have been invaded by the North Koreans, the Vietnamese, and the Iraqis. Oh, and the Cubans. Musn’t forget the Cubans.
Well, maybe not.
A very, very long way from any threats I can think of. You are welcome to provide evidence of these phantom threats, but it’s up to you to prove we avoided them by being free riders.
I cannot see any evidence, at all, that the existence of military power on the part of one party prevents wars. Britain’s status as a major world power did not prevent World Wars I or II. A world with less of an American military presence - and remember that a diminished U.S. military could still have fielded a nuclear deterrent - might have been more dangerous, or it might have been safer, a position I’m sure many Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians would suggest is possible. Or it might have been more dangerous for other people but not for us, I don’t know. You don’t either.
I thought Gorsnak’s point is quite clear; the only serious, existential military threat Canada faces now, or has faced since long before I was born, is nuclear attack. There isn’t any scenario under which we can defend ourselves from that except by being covered by NATO’s nuclear umbrella, and the U.S. could have a deterrent nuclear force while spending vastly less money - as in fact both the United Kingdom and France do today. Whether that would make Canada more or less safe we don’t know, but quite honestly an examination of my daughter’s globe suggests it would make no difference at all. We have no neighbours except the one you claim is defending us.
What I do know is the U.S. doesn’t defend Canada, specifically, and never has.
Forget the others; let’s concentrate on the Cubans. Will they bring rum and cigars in an effort to win our hearts and minds?
Forget the rum and cigars; what about the women? 