Thinking Canadian in the USA

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

Well, I've been here over a month now, and while I notice some differences like the ones noted above, I haven't found it to be a very difficult transition at all. By and large, people are nice when you talk nicely to them...and already in my job I've had to talk to a LOT of people, and in a few instances to chase down money they owe. True, it's more of an upper-middle class organization, but I've also noticed this in a more general sense.

Some people DO seem a bit dumber down here though. Jaywalking across busy freeways...driving badly...just general lack of attention or consideration. For the most part though, I don't mind the change of environment. I can't believe how little I miss Canada, to be honest... Hope that doesn't sound like heresy on this board!

[Krikit 1,163]

I think that it's much more difficult to accept the differences between Canada and the US because we have such close ties and expect things to be similar. Most of us lived near the border and travelled back and forth quite readily, and saw that the differences really weren't that great. (Except for the sales! Gotta love the US sales! lol) Once you start moving into the interior of both countries, you find marked differences. When I travel to other countries I expect there to be cultural differences so I am not bothered when there are. But because I expect things to quasi remain the same between Canada and the US, I sometimes go into a state of semi-shock..... "What do you mean they do it that way?? It's done this way in Canada!!" Once you get past the fact that you are in a different country.... and not just an extension of Canada.... and vice versa.... you settle down.

[beans 7]

Good call Kritkit

[Pauley 2]

While the US says it practices separation of Church and State it has been my experience that it does anything but - Church and State are very much married to each other in politics and daily life.

There is no official, complete "separation of church and state" in the United States. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Very little of what is often described as being a violation of separation of church and state makes any attempt to impose a government religion or prevent anyone from following their own religion, thus, most of the things people complain about in this regard are completely legal.

(Admittedly, "very little" and "most" are weasel words here; I can't and wouldn't give a free pass to any action solely on the grounds of religious freedom.)

[DougM 0]

No disrepect intended, but whoever told you that has no idea what they are talking about. The 2nd ammendment was written at the time because the U.S. did not have a standing, professional army. The British had previously tried to ban the ownership of guns to prevent any rebellion. This was to combat that. Today, a lot of conservative and gun enthusiasts mistakenly interpret that to mean that the founding fathers of this nation wrote it in there to support rebellion against an overbearing government.

Wrong.....It doesn't take alot of study to clearly understand the intent. The Second Ammendment is specifically to prevent tyrrany within our own government first and foremost, and has been upheld by the Supreme court to be an individual right.

[DougM 0]

It is good to remember that the United States is a HUGE country with many different regions and many different sub-cultures. What you encounter in one area is likely entirely different in other areas. Just as a Canadian from B.C. is very different than a Canadian from Quebec, an American from say New York stands out like a sore thumb here in Alaska, and I'm sure I didn't fit in when I went to New York city!

In my experience, people from the rural areas tend to be laid back and courteous, whereas the folks from urban areas are not..... VERY generally speaking.

[DougM 0]

This one really frustrates me. Sometimes I think people here are incapable of seeing things from another person's perspective. As long as their needs are taken care of, who cares about anyone else. And what is good enough for me, is good enough for you - circumstances be damned. It's almost unreal. I had to stop myself from reading the news so much, because when I would read the comments on the news stories, I'd start having physical responses to the anger I felt from the ignorance and stupidity that some people spout. I feel like back in Canada, there wasn't as much of that. Or at least, I could respect other people's opinions because they were based on something. With the heathcare debate, a lot of people are really against the bill (even though it is now a LAW), but they couldn't even articulate why.

And the funny part is, almost all of our friends are conservative. I have a perfect example of my frustration. A wife of a friend posted on her facebook the other day, and here is how the conversation went :

K "Make no mistake, a 'yes' vote on the Democrats' health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions."- tis the truth! As a catholic and as woman I find this revolting....pro-life all the way~!

23 March at 12:52 ·

M But there is an existing law prohibiting federal funds for abortions, there is nothing in the heathcare bill that mentions that, AND the President himself signed an executive order reaffirming that no government money will be used...? Why do you think this?23 March at 13:56 ·

K An executive order won't supersede legislation passed by Congress and courts will look to the legislation rather than the executive order when ruling on federally funded abortions.23 March at 18:47

M I know, but there already is legislation. The Hyde amendment. Google it. The executive order was just overkill to try ease the minds of over-zealous republicans.23 March at 19:05 ·

K Whatever it may be I don't trust Obama. He is a liar and a snake. He's represents everything I don't believe in. Thanks for your thoughts though! 23 March at 19:10

Since when did BELIEF hold more weight than FACT?

The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions. It is not a permanent law, rather it is a "rider" that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid.

The Senate bill passed by the House on March 21, 2010 did not contain that Hyde Amendment language. As part of an agreement between Rep. Bart Stupak and President Obama to secure Stupak's vote, the President issued an executive order on March 24, 2010 affirming that the Hyde Amendment would extend to the new bill.

[Spoom 8]

Another one - and it may just be region specific - but the focus on religion. There are more churches here than there were Tim Horton's back home (ok, that was a joke!), but there are literally churches everywhere from the small cornerstore church to the mega-churches - in shopping malls, industrial parks, on 3 out of 4 street corners . . . . there are 4 different churches at the entrance to our subdivision beside each other and across the road from each other. While the US says it practices separation of Church and State it has been my experience that it does anything but - Church and State are very much married to each other in politics and daily life. And at the risk of raising ire, I don't see a lot of those 'Christian values" that were practiced by the Churches back home practiced here: intolerance, greed, vanity, judgment and fear seem to be at the core of many of these church's messages. I am not religious but my mother was and I remember her quiet faith that she lived every day of her life - tolerance, kindness, generosity and helping others regardless of who they were, where they lived, what they believed or in what situation they found themself. She didn't need recognition; she didn't need praise; she didn't need to make a big public statement that she was doing this in the name of Jesus or God - she didn't need anyone to know - her religion was between her and God and shared by the congregation at Church. Religion here is just - so 'in your face' - and if you don't believe what they believe you are one of 'them' and not 'us'. I am sorry if anyone feels offended by this observation, but it is another difference I have noted between Canada and the US - the attitude towards religion.

To be fair, the intolerance, greed, fear, etc. is probably either regional or based on the religion in question. Granted, there are a few of those ones here, but at least my wife's religion is pretty accepting and doesn't just declare people damned if they don't agree. The focus is much more on helping people than fire and brimstone.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

Re: the religion issue...

I DO agree that I feel less comfortable saying, conversationally, that I'm an atheist down here. I have a sense that a thing like that matters a tad more here than it does to most Canadians. Some people forget that freedom of religion also includes the freedom to not have one.

Then again, the Canadian "constitution" has a preamble that "recognize the supremacy of God", while the U.S. one is a bit more vague about such things.

[Udella&Wiz 325]

Re: the religion issue...

I DO agree that I feel less comfortable saying, conversationally, that I'm an atheist down here. I have a sense that a thing like that matters a tad more here than it does to most Canadians. Some people forget that freedom of religion also includes the freedom to not have one.

Then again, the Canadian "constitution" has a preamble that "recognize the supremacy of God", while the U.S. one is a bit more vague about such things.

That reminds me....regarding separation of church and state...its not a separate as it should be (or as we're used to in Canada). The election was a good example...everyone was concerned about which church the Obamas will attend, going to a prayer breakfast for political leaders in Washington is a tradition (freaks me out myself)....In Cdn politics do we ever wonder what religion the PM is? Does anyone even know if Stephen Harper goes to church or a synagogue or a temnple for that matter? I think as long as he's not sacrificing virgins in the backyard at 21 Sussex....I don't care what he's doing religiously.

Just a non-issue for me...but boy do foolks down here get worked up about it...and yet if you asked them, they'd say it was a private matter.

[one_day_at_a_time 0]

I miss thinking in "Celsius". I haven't been in the U.S. that long for pete's sake (well 2-1/2 years); however, I find that I have to keep my mind refreshed by googling the weather on a frequent basis to get the temp conversion.

[Krikit 1,163]

I find it fascinating that groups of people can be so diverse. Even the groups within groups are different. We are each our own little snowflake.... no two the same. Awwwww.

[Sprailenes 47]

Politics are way more extreme down here. I won't even get into it, it's actually caused a riff between my husband and his cousin. Husband is a democrat, his cousin is a republican... they pretty much hate eachother.

In Canada I had many conservative friends, and we all got along, but down here I just get the feeling that you don't really mix with that other side, and if you do, you don't talk about politics because it gets ugly.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Wrong.....It doesn't take alot of study to clearly understand the intent. The Second Ammendment is specifically to prevent tyrrany within our own government first and foremost, and has been upheld by the Supreme court to be an individual right.

You're taking a gun advocates opinion on this, which you're entitled to. But you're still wrong. The second amendment was not written to enable its citizens to revolt.

[DougM 0]

You're taking a gun advocates opinion on this, which you're entitled to. But you're still wrong. The second amendment was not written to enable its citizens to revolt.

Well, as I stated before, it doesn't take alot of digging to prove you wrong. The Federalist papers were writings of the founders that essentially clarified their intent regarding certain matters so there would be no confusion. I could fill these pages with evidence to support my position.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29 addresses this.

Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:

"[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"

In Federalist #28, Hamilton wrote;

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

...and as I stated before, the Supreme court has upheld this right. Just because YOU don't want it to be true, doesn't mean it isn't true.