Marna -- I didn't want to make this a Canada vs. USA thing, which is why I didn't make the points you did. And also because I couldn't have put them so succinctly or intelligently.
What upsets me about the whole case is that the US Constitution is apparently only for certain people. When I was in Philadelphia less than a year ago, I marvelled at the American experiment -- the world still has much to learn from the wisdom and idealism of the guys who founded the country. You think they weren't scared? You think they knew how successful they would be with this constitution crap?
No one knew what would happen. And it worked. And every modern democracy has the American model to look to for their success. And now, because people are unsettled and scared, they're betraying their own country's ideals to protect their own sense of security.
Why would these people throw all that -- everything that the USA is about, everything that the rest of us look to for an understanding of what a modern civil society is supposed to be -- why would they throw all that away?
I don't know what anyone can do about all this. I wish I did.
I'm not worried about travelling to the USA, and I was thinking of travelling to New York on my next vacation. However, I begin to feel like going elsewhere just out of spite. I'm sure I'm not the only one. It's unfortuante that this kind of thing will lessen trade and tourism with the USA -- something that you guys are hurting for already.
In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that citizenship was not a legal basis for discrimination (just as race, sex, and religion are not). This was only in 1995, and our modern constitution has only existed since 1982. I'm not sure of the process but is it possible that such a ruling will one day be made in the USA? Or is the issue more or less closed?
As one of the outsiders (Canadian), thanks very much for the post. It does feel better to know that there are so many people who are interested in turning this mess around. Up here, we're helpless.
What I would advise to the democrats out there, though, is to work to stop the shrill, screeching, complaining, knee-jerk criticism (of which Teresa's posts are not an example). I'm sure that it really helped to crystallize the right's vote -- and they tend to crystallize much more easily than the left, I'd say. Can you go into a bookstore, look in the politics section, and see anything but a wall of books proclaiming that Bush is a Bad Person? I'm on your side, and I'm sick of it.
I'm tired of hearing that Bush and co are evil geniuses, and then, in the next breath, that Bush is an idiot. I'm tired of hearing that this is the most corrupt, evil administration of all time -- even if it's true, I hear it so often that it's lost all meaning.
I'm not the one to know how the next four years' campaign should be run. But the message has to change, to something that isn't just a constant assertion that the other side is wrong. Being right isn't enough.
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall."
M@
I'm not sure what Canada's extradition laws were like during the Vietnam war, but right now, they force Canadian officials to extradite charged foreigners at the request of the other country's officials unless the person will be persecuted by his country back home.
Note that I said persecuted, not prosecuted. Examples of persecution are maltreatment of political or ethnic minorities. One exception is that Canada does not typically extradite people without getting guarantees that the other country will not put the person to death, since our country does not support the death penalty in any way (not that we don't sometimes feel like it would be a good idea...)
Anyhow, it seems likely that draft dodgers, if detected, would be sent back to the US.
I worked with one draft dodger from last time, and he said he came to Canada and lived for a couple of years on a commune, and then worked for a very liberal literary press.
My point is, it probably wasn't that easy to get a legitimate job then, and it won't be now. But there are people who will run to Canada and I'm sure many of them will get by.
I don't think many Canadians would even consider turning them in. Unless, of course, it would bring back hockey.
This guy has almost a conspiracy theory view of the publishing world -- he appears to think that the "Big" authors, even Rawlings, don't ever meet with editors, or rework any of their writing.
It's as though their books sell because of the name on the front, not because people have enjoyed reading the books that have had that name on the front in the past. I'm definitely not in the pro-King or pro-Grisham camps, but I've read more than one book by both of them and I can see why they sell.
As an aside, can someone point me to the thread about male authors needing the most editing? I've been reading this blog for a while but I don't remember seeing it. As an unpublished male author, I'd like to know what my problem is. :) Actually, it sounds like an opportunity for a competitive advantage...
M@
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 3 |
| 2004 | 3 |
Total: 6 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by M@:
Show all comments by M@.