This generation of players -led by Crosby- will certainly go down in Canadian lore. That second Cup and most recent international gold vaults him into rarefied hockey air.
US versus China for world position
-
Dylan, You need to stop picking places in the world where terrible things are happening. Ethopia is current facing a severe drought which is creating food shortages and could develop into a famine. Thousands have died from starvation and the capitol is under threat from the same conditions. Just because a country has some factories dosnt mean that they have the infrastructure or the ability to make up the slack that would be created by stoping bussiness with China.
-
Wow there seems to be problems everywhere in the world. :|
-
If I understand you correctly Mr. Malachi, you are a Canadian wondering what the hell kind of political and economic games the US is playing with China.
This is the first that I have heard of Canada submitting alternate proposals to China if the Keystone deal doesn’t pan out with the US. … well, I can’t say as I can blame Canada for that. You have to sell your product to someone. And if nobody else will buy it but the communists, well so be it.
I really have a hard time believing that this whole ordeal is part of a machiavellian power gambit staged by the US. First of all, the current state of US foreign affairs supports the opposite. The President and Secretary Clinton have managed to diminish US prestige in the world, not enhance it. While they have undertaken limited measures to sanction unstable or hostile governments, they have in greater measure surrendered elements of US sovereignty, alienated close allies and made decisions based on identification with a growing global community rather than in support of US security.
Second reason that I don’t think it is machiavellian is that the Chinese cannot be that naive. If anything I believe the trend of surrendering US global influence points to the Chinese (or others) using machiavellian tactics on us
A rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline deal by the US would be completely idiotic. This is another example of US surrendering security and proven solutions for environmental green trends. For years arguments have been made for Alaskan drilling and increased oil trade with Canada over buying from foreign nations across the world who are not friendly to the US. Continued rejection of home-based energy production makes no sense whatsoever. The United States and Canada share an extremely close relationship already, but together we could be completely self-sufficient, if politicians had both country’s best interests at heart instead of global agendas.
Personally, I love Canada. I love hockey. I love to vacation there. I don’t agree with some of Canadian government, but they are still a freedom and liberty endorsing nation, in a world that is growing increasingly less free. Canada has a wealth of resources which they trade mostly with the US. I hope it remains that way and that economically our countries grow even closer, because such an alliance is a tremendously powerful force in the world and can only benefit us both.
-
We must be careful not to cross the line about talking about politics. A few observations, we shall have to agree to disagree to avoid a debate about politics. I disagree that your president and secretary of state have diminished US prestige. As for surrendering elements of US sovereignty……some examples would be appreciated. It could be argued that US sovereignty has been over represented throughout the last century and is returning to a more normal state of affairs.
Canada and the US do share many values and are and will be strong trading partners. However, economically our countries are diverging and will continue to do so, and its healthy for us and provides us with safety. At one point 90% of our exports went to the US, this gave the US too much power over our economic interests. Canadian whines don’t often make the US news, but it gets played here quite a bit, such as the Keystone deal. The US is holding our interests hostage for political reasons.
The softwood lumber dispute is another sore spot. NAFTA was to see free trade yet protectionist state interests ‘prick-shot’ Canada and there isn’t much…or wasn’t much we could do in the face of this perceived ‘bullying’. Rightly or wrongly, a few things Canadian kids get taught in public school is:
The War of 1812. Big bad USA and its belief in ‘Manifest Destiny’ tried to conquer peace loving Canada. Obviously more complicated than that unfair portrayal. Yet the resistance of US assimilation seems to in part define the Canadian psyche.
In recent history I cite our Avro Arrow. It’s a common belief (mostly myth) that the plane was too good and bad ole US of A told us to cancel it. As a result lots of our brightest aero-space engineers went to the US to help with the moonshot which was true. The reason for the cancellation was complex but had little to do with US arm-twisting. That being said, most Canadians rightly or wrongly feel the USA is a bully.
I said it before and will say it again, instead of gutting US environmental laws (and labour laws), enforce them on Chinese companies and products. If Canada and the US started making what we buy in Walmart then I think we can grow the pie and we can afford to be a bit more socialist.
-
The War of 1812. Big bad USA and its belief in ‘Manifest Destiny’ tried to conquer peace loving Canada. Obviously more complicated than that unfair portrayal. Yet the resistance of US assimilation seems to in part define the Canadian psyche.
In recent history I cite our Avro Arrow. It’s a common belief (mostly myth) that the plane was too good and bad ole US of A told us to cancel it. As a result lots of our brightest aero-space engineers went to the US to help with the moonshot which was true. The reason for the cancellation was complex but had little to do with US arm-twisting. That being said, most Canadians rightly or wrongly feel the USA is a bully.
The War of 1812? That was against the British Empire! Canada wasn’t even a country then!
Also about the US being a bully, people just feel the need to hate the person on top.
I’m sure people were very anti British in the 1800’s.
I’m sure people were very anti Roman in the 400’s.
So if the US makes one demand it’s a bully. I’m sure China will start bossing countries around too.
-
I think China’s wealth has been stolen by Wall Street, in fact, the world are being controlled by the wall street. China is using the labor and the resources for a industry that is fully controlled by the virtual industry. And copy industry like this replica handbags, replica iPhone, replica Dresses is used by many developing country too for reversing this gap.
-
Dylan, I didn’t think I needed to use the HTML tags for sarcasm. I had thought my use of “more complicated than that unfair portrayal” and “(mostly myth)” would edify my thinking but……
I don’t think there are many Canadians who hate the US. I also think there were more valid reasons for hating the Romans circa…(eastern or western Roman empire?) 400ish AD and Britain of the 1800s wasn’t too kind to non-subjects. The only dude I knew who really was anti-American was a bit of an idiot, but his sister was super hot so… He would in one sentence rail about the US (and show is utter lack of knowledge on the subject) then go on about his Budweiser tattoos. I kid you not… How somebody could miss the irony in that juxtaposition of thought is beyond me.
I look at the US somewhat like a big brother. You know you are a bit smarter (or thinks so) and you compete like crazy. Sometimes big bro is a bit of a bully but you know you have each others back. You also know one day you will be able to smugly say “I told you so” then help them pick up the pieces of their damaged life.
It is natural for the stronger of two parties to use their strength to get the best possible deal. Back in the day the US was the only game in town hence in Canada’s case, 90% of our exports went to the US. US states could be a bit dickish and affect US federal policy as in the softwood dispute and now the Keystone oil pipeline project. The difference is now Canada can sell to China if the US thinks they have too much control over the situation.
I for one welcome the rise of peaceful law abiding giants to stand next to Canada as consumers of our products and resources. I wonder who will be the first in that category? wry grin
-
We must be careful not to cross the line about talking about politics.
Agreed.
I disagree that your president and secretary of state have diminished US prestige. As for surrendering elements of US sovereignty……some examples would be appreciated. It could be argued that US sovereignty has been over represented throughout the last century and is returning to a more normal state of affairs.
In the interests of not being too political, or starting a debate, I have to be careful here. To clarify, when I said “sovereignty” I meant that mostly in terms of domestic interests rather than foreign ones. Meaning the United States in recent times, not just under President Obama, has allowed global or foreign bodies to influence US legislation and Constituitonal law. This encompasses executive leadership, but also Supreme Court apointees and members of Congress. The following two articles are simply an overview. Unfortunately, I am afraid it would be far too political for me to argue a point with a number of specific examples.
Ex. 1: http://stanfordreview.org/article/former-un-ambassador-john-bolton-talks-us-sovereig/
Ex. 2: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/879/assessing-globalization-benefits-and-drawbacks-of-trade-and-integration (more of an assessment)And as for “diminished prestige”… well, I guess this is a foreign policy discussion. You just have to ask yourself if you feel that the US is more respected in the world since President Obama took office, or less. You could argue for both, but more countries liking us or our political direction is not the same as them respecting us. That respect is accross the board: economic policy, military policy, social policy, keeping our word. If we say what we mean and do what we say, the US will be respected. If we do not honor our commitments and refuse to defend our sovereign decisions… well that equals loss of prestige and respect.
“US Over-representation” … Well that is an interesting thought, and I would have to mull it over some more, but since World War I this "over-representation has been pretty normal for the US. Pre-WWI the United States was still a “growing” nation; in territory and national identity. That identity and true international power was discovered immediately after WWI, built on in the 1920s and solidified during the Second World War. Certain countries like the US, Russia and China have been contenders for top-dog for nearly as long as the US, and there will always be a top tier like that. If not the US, then it will be someone else or some other group. At least the US is benevolent about their role and responsibilities. The same probably could not be said of Russia or China.
The US is holding our interests hostage for political reasons.
Okay… most likely true. I think it is damn stupid too.
Although I am considered a Conservative in Canada, I seem to favour Obama right now over any Republican offerings.
If you think this way as Canadian conservative, then you would be a liberal in the United States, or at the very most a left leaning “moderate”. But (this is not meant to be political but logical), do you believe that American liberals are more likely to endorse Keystone than American conservatives? If Keystone and other environmental issues are some of your primary concerns, our current President certainly does not have the track record or intent to loosen regulation on energy business or expand anything but the renweable industry. Just an observation, though perhaps I have misinterpreted your concerns.
Instead of gutting US environmental laws (and labour laws), enforce them on Chinese companies and products.
That sounds like a nearly impossible task. Not sure how one or two countries (even the US) could hope to enforce such requirements, or even assure that that are met, with the world’s largest country. Additionally, this train of thought would call for the US (and Canada) to further “bully” outside countries like China and maybe other smaller nations and get them to adhere to some sort of international trade-energy law. I would hope that most people see such an action as antithetical to what the US believes. I realize that the US has used such “bullying” power in the past, and I personally do not agree with it, but is it permissible here because it would help Canada or because it is in-step with what Europe (and hence the UN) pushes for? Just playing devil’s advocate here
If Canada and the US started making what we buy in Walmart then I think we can grow the pie and we can afford to be a bit more socialist.
It is obvious that Europe cannot afford to be more socialist and the US was never designed for it. I don’t know about Canada though… maybe they can afford it.
PS - I sincerely apologize if this post causes IL to shut us down. I tried to be a non-political as possible, but it is very, very difficult to do that with the way this topic is going.
-
Too many people getting older and older and no young ones to support them or their soc. sec. systems I think it will overburden their resources
-
LHoffman, well written and excellent points.
I read the article about John Bolton. I get that the US constitution is primary over foreign policy choices, but that has been flexible in the past. The jest of the article to me suggested sometimes the US has to just act in the fact of European inertia on important issues. If I have that wrong, well…. I think often the US does have to take the lead and should ‘bend the rules’. But it does come at some cost. But pragmatic countries will not squawk about good choices. However, good choices require constructive criticism to hone them.
The other article “Assessing Globalization: Benefits and Drawbacks of Trade and Integration”. I’m not sure how that relates, but a good read. The US economic system has generated a great deal of wealth and has inspired people world wide to come and join that system. Now many people can enjoy the system while staying home. More people have been lifted from poverty in India and China via economic growth than from the 'West’s efforts for a century.
Sovereignty. Yes, any country should never influence the choice of executive leadership, Supreme Court apointees and members of Congress, and the corresponding versions in respective countries. It’s a pity we all so easily hand this over to business but not foreign countries.
Canadian conservatives would be middle of the road I think for US politics. Everything for the most part is slanted to the left here. Our country has some great advantages. Some disadvantages are our small size and fractured economic structure. We have more free trade Province to USA compared to Province to Province. Our companies need to amalgamate to get economies of scale, all sectors except for our 5 official full service BANKS. Our lefty socials rules about financial control seem to have made us the envy of the world in that sector anyways.
I have always said the US has been by far and wide the best example of a country in the #1 world position. But there are always areas to improve and without feedback and metrics, this is pret near impossible for any entity.
On environmental and labour laws. It would be that tough at all. It is easy to ban products manufactured by slave or child labour. I do believe existing laws could be enforced. I think new laws could be drafted to prevent unsafe or unfairly (read dumping laws) manufactured goods. OK, legal issues aside. Why on earth doesn’t any organisation run commercials showing the worst of what the Chinese do in order to undercut our values so as to beat us in world trade? To an extent, natural economic forces are forcing up the labour costs in China. If they had to manufacture according to our environmental/labour laws or not sell those products here period…would create a level playing field. I don’t think it bullying to say, “Here are the rules, let the best company win but let the cheaters be punished”.
Some countries and areas have a natural advantage. Locally, they make ice wine. I’d like to see California do that. We on the other hand can only grow oranges inside a greenhouse and they would cost about 20 bucks each. Our local wine industry is a good example of proper economic strategy. Initially, it was a closed market so we could compete with California for cheap wine. Local grape growers were not exposed to the market, but a good old socialist state system protected them. So, don’t compete with California for industrial scale wine production. Use local and imported skills, move up the food chain in products and sell higher quality products. 20 years later, the Niagara wine industry and their ice wines are world famous.
OK, you and I don’t agree on environmental laws. I have seen some first hand evidence of the results. I live and grew up along the great lakes. As a kid I never caught gobies or heard of zebra mussels. I would have love a law that FORCED ships that were in fresh water in europe to flush their ballast tanks in the ocean with salt water before coming into my fresh water lake and dumping species from Europe or other freshwater bodies into my lake.
Gobies
http://www.invadingspecies.com/Invaders.cfm?A=Page&PID=8Zebra mussles
http://www.invadingspecies.com/Invaders.cfm?A=page&PID=1Currently some southern US states are fighting northern US states and Canada against some environmental laws to fight this sort of thing, such as the asian carp coming into the great lake system from US waterways. So, this is now an example of a foreign country trying to interfere with US sovereignty to do as they please inside their own country. This is the kind of example where yeah, we in Canada know the argument, nobody can tell you what to do. Well, technically true, yet, when these asian carp enter the great lakes and the US could have help stop it but…didn’t…
An example of success was the US-Canada efforts to curb acid rain. Most of the effects of US sulfur emissions from coal plants without proper scrubbers were inside Canada.
Obama et al. on the XL pipeline…yeah not too happy about that one. I am an ‘environmentalist’, but am no tree huger. But I do say if you cut them, you replant them, in fact you have a long term harvest plan. The oil sands product is not the cleanest oil due to extraction/refining issues, but it is better than coal.
Newt Gingrich would probably be best for Canada’s interests of the current crop, he is an intelligent yet a very flawed man.
Views on public health care are interesting. The Canada and US system are so different, and yet both groups tend to like their system intensely. It’s a pity some grown up couldn’t take the best of both systems and make it work.
On the trade thing, any time one country is selling far far more of its stuff compared to buying has got to be bad. It should be a self correcting system however. China sells stuff to the US, gets US bills. Can’t use US bills internally so must sell them for Chinese currency held by other countries. Eventually lots of US dollars chasing few Chinese notes causes US currency to fall, China’s to raise thus causing US goods to be more attractive and Chinese goods less thus bringing the system back into balance. But the Chinese abuse this and we let them get away with it. I am all for fair trade and a rising boat for all folks.
-
Likewise, well written Mr. Malachi.
We will agree to disagree, though in many ways we are on the same page. And I am very happy to have an intelligent discussion with you.
The “Trade” article was simply to highlight some areas of globalization. It seemed to touch on some of my points, but it also looked at others and was not biased, so I threw it in there.
And not that other countries (or more specifically their actions) should not influence the election or appointment of US officials, because world events and policies should influence their consciousness. My real point was that these US officials should not dilute the United States Constitution by bringing into US law opinions and laws made by other sovereign nations or global bodies. I would see that the US could do as they wish and Canada do as they wish, regarding, certainly, domestic policy and foreign policy to the fullest extent. Obviously, both would have to make concessions or compromise in a given international agreement, but that is part of the process. My concerns are over world entities limiting US (or Canadian) sovereignty by a slow creep of globalism.
And yes, I would agree that the US has been the best “#1”… and I would also agree that there is a lot we can do to improve. Starting with a worldwide reduction of military presence where it really isn’t necessary and a return to responsible fiscal spending in order to honor our debts and inspire international confidence.
I still think it would be difficult to make sure China is playing by the rules that would be layed out. For one, I really don’t think they care. People are cheap in China, at least that is how many who are in power in China see it. Whatever it takes to do, omit or ignore to make China # 1, they will do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_in_the_People’s_Republic_of_ChinaWARNING… the following video is absolutely sickening. I was disturbed for some time after watching this. Still, I think it is important for people to see the truth. Read the article too.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sickening-video-two-vans-hit-chinese-toddler-18-passers-by-ignore-her-suffering/Even though they sign treaties to limit pollution and increase worker safety, only time will tell if they make good on their promises or if they simply throw more bodies under the bus(es) to pursue world dominance… which has been the historical trend for China.
I am just skeptical of the possibilities there. People around the world will still buy their cheap products and China will only change when it wants to. I agree with your sentiment that everyone should play by the rules and violators should be punished, but it is a hard issue.
As for environmental laws, I am quite for them when they serve an intelligent purpose, especially as it relates to water pollutants and invasive species. Don’t get me started on the Great Lakes issues… I have lived in Toledo, Ohio all my life and love the Great Lakes more than any other water in the world. I too used to take trips to Lake Erie with my parents when I was younger (and I still do myself) and back then the water was at least moderately clean. Today, that beach I used to go to has been closed for public use and the water there looks like black sludge, clogged with a crap-load of zebra shells. I hate it man, and for a long time I have considered doing something with a career in looking to reverse the effects. So… I know personally how you feel.
(And like I said, I frequently vacation in Michigan on the Lakes and in Canada on Lake Superior… so I also know how good the Lakes can be if cared for.)
I consider myself an environmentalist too, in the sense that I love the environment and feel the need to protect it and restore it. But like you, I am no tree hugger. I do not support the vast majority of alternative energy initiatives because they are simply wasteful monetarily and pander to an artificial market, both in businesses and individuals.
Back to the Great Lakes… yes a law abou ballast dumping would have been wonderful and I would have supported such a thing, if I had been alive when the problem began. Same with the carp problem. This is an area where it is the governments of both the US and Canada to take measures to protect our most vital freshwater ecosystem. There should be nothing political about it. Keystone is political because it more national and it deals with oil. Most American liberals (and progressive Republicans too) have painted oil as an environmental evil simply for political gain. Keystone will get more attention because it would cut right down the center of the United States, bringing many more states than those in the great lakes area into the equation.
When Canada spars with the US over Great Lakes policy it is not an invasion on US sovereignty. I don’t know how they are represented legally, but the Lakes should not be sovereign US territory (diplomatically in respective waters yes, but not environmentally). We have our side of the waters, sure, but water behaves differently than a land border. Our two countries need to come to an agreement over this issues specifically because the Lakes are the single element that we actually, fully share. The US cannot do what it pleases with its half of Lake Superior, Huron, Erie or Ontario and think that it will not affect the Canadian side. And the same goes for Lake Michigan, to nearly the same extent. Canada has every national right to complain and work out some agreement with the United States over this issue. If the US and Canada successfully came to agreement of acid rain, they should do so even more with the Lakes… but unfortunately, neither you nor I can directly change that.
Yeah, all the Republican candidates are flawed. I cannot say I am entirely pleased with any single one of them, but on the whole I feel much more comfortable with any one of them than I do with current leadership. But that is a sidenote.
Sorry to take your thread a bit off topic, but I think we have come to a better understanding of the issues and each other.
-
A good conversation meanders, I have to keep checking to see what the heading is myself!
About the US military presence in many and varied places. It would seem to me that bring back most of the boys from Germany and Europe would be an easy choice. Korea has come along way since 100K was the norm, you can make an argument for a few guys in Korea but the south really can more than pay its way.
I do understand the military doctrine of being so tough nobody will even think about attacking. One can make the argument it saves money in the long run to prevent war. Well it worked against the soviets. I am not sure if it can work long term against a future economic powerhouse.
I think you might find this website interesting. You can only view 7 articles a month. Trick then, use a version of a browser for only that site. I normally use chrome, so I use firefox for this site only. If you clear your history, specifically the cookie for this site, then you can view unlimited documents.
The site is:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/
Two articles that brings home current US military supremacy compared to the rest of the world.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/destroyers.htm
How many Nimitz type carriers will a future China be ‘allowed’ to have? Yes the old soviet carrier China is playing with is interesting, but for awhile western news media seemed in a frenzy. I find the language of some US pundits interesting when they contemplate China having some measure of parity with the US military. On the other hand, it scares the heck out of me (and the south china sea area) when China makes claims like these:
-
Very cool website, and articles. I didn’t know about it.
It has been said that the United States will never be defeated or overcome by an outside (military) force. But it is only nefarious internal dissention which can defeat us.
I believe that is true. So I am less concerned with the US maintaining military might. I know we will. My concerns are over what our country and its people are becoming. Those who advocate globalism (through social justice, environmentalism, etc…), are anti-military, anti-capitalist… the list goes on… this i what will overcome the US standing in the world. Not another country’s military.
It all goes back to my statements on retaining sovereignty and respect. We are currently losing those characteristics from within. Again, not political, just an observation of the change.
But I really liked those articles… my kind of reading!
-
I read mostly interesting comments posted so far on this topic,
so let me add a few.Communist China spys on the USA and other countries.
China has ambitions to avenge and retake other parts of Asia, including Japan and many former Japanese colonies that hold significant percentages of ethnic Chinese, like the Taiwan, Singapore, and the Philippines.China rise has fruitioned from the seeds of US policies since the Nixon era.
Nixon visited the Great wall because he wanted to isolate the USSR.
Saigon fell to the USSR supported communists a few years later.Carter granted Communist PROC China the ROC (now Taiwan) UN seat.
Reagan left it mostly alone. But he was generally anti-communist.
GHW Bush (former ambassador) counted China as part of the post Gulf War New World Order after the Tiananmen massacre (1989).
Clinton granted China Most Favored Trading Nation despite many human injustices. There was some sort of orange robed religious group campaign contribution scandal during his re-election campaign that was linked to China
GW Bush ramped down on anti-China policies after our planes collided and China never returned our surveillance plane.
BHO runs up massive daily overspending debt, which China seemed happy to buy until 2010. BHO DOE policy also restricts US oil firms from drilling, but allows foreign firms, including those from China, to gain permits to drill for our gulf resources.
As an anti-communist ranter, the only halfway decent thing I can say about the rise of China is that they are currently not spreading more communism. They are actually rising via mercantilistic capitalism.
There was a Bloomberg article about Steve Wynn saying that China’s real estate policies and other regulations were more stable than what he gets in the USA, leading him to open more resorts on that side of the ocean.
-
Good points Linkon. Careful about anything that can be remotely connected to politics. I know merely commenting on what NATO does is enough to get a topic closed by moderators for talking politics so we must be treading close to the line now.
I think you would agree the only thing communist about China is perhaps some letterheads here and there! As for the Chinese real estate market. I wouldn’t count it immune from market corrections. I was watching a recent documentary (probably BBC) showing a mall with pretty much no tenants. A massive mall that would hold 100s and 100s of tenants pretty much a ghost town. I think China has its own problem with real estate speculation. But that tends to happen when you have more money than god and don’t know where to invest it.
-
Just an interesting point about China-US trade. I had made the point somewhere that the ‘West’ ought to put taxes on Chinese products that are cheaper due to labour and environmental standards we would not tolerate in our own countries. This in order to help ‘even the playing field’.
We the ‘West’ don’t seem able to bring ourselves to doing something like that. But the Chinese have no problem doing that to the ‘West’, so why are we so impotent to balancing the playing field?
Of particular interest is this in following article:
Car wars
In the continuing trade spat between the US and China, the Commerce Ministry said it would impose an anti-subsidy and anti-dumping duty on small US cars.The tariff will range from 2% to 21.5% and will affect General Motors, Chrysler, Ford and other US-based foreign car makers.
-
http://posts.people.com.cn/bbs_new/filepool/htdoc/html/e871ec4e1b711b141ac5b82eab062e2d6220b1bb/b4390821/l_4390821_1.html
http://english.people.com.cn/90780/91344/7580316.htmlHere if you ever heard of Japan’s lost decade, read these. They’re suggesting China might repeat it.
-
An interesting article, but the author doesn’t believe China is actually going to follow Japan. What is really interesting about that page is when you hover the pointer over a word you get the original chinese word and dictionary page for it.
We do not accept the viewpoint that China is stepping into a lost decade, but we must never evade or cover the economic issues facing China
I saw this BBC documentary on a mall in China were for the last few years since construction only 1-2% of it is occupied. A quick google and I found the documentary here, 14 minutes, pretty cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E
That clip certainly seems to add weight to the ‘For bubble argument’ found here:
-
You read/watch BBC a lot.
-
Actually, the BBC is but a minority of what I watch. It does however represent the largest source of relevant articles to me anyways. That documentary was re-aired on the CBC when I first saw it.
Suggested Topics
