Buscaraons
Chamberlain's grandkids: some additionsal thoughts on jingoism and shared values
Over at Charles Johnson's site, there's a fascinating discussion about Europe as Chamberlain's grandkids for their perceived appeasement towards Islamic integrist terrorism. Neverthless, I did pick up a distressing tendency among some commentators and other bloggers that dismays me very much: a creeping jingoism and an acritical Eurobashing. I'm concerned because the antagonistic division between Europe and America will be exploited by the Islamic integrists to divide and conquer. More fundamentally, the dissension between Europe and America is really one of misunderstanidng each other. I see both committed to preserving Western culture, the open society a certain secularism, degrees of market economy, pluralism, etc. Where the friction arises is that each side of the Atlantic expresses that committment differently which causes unnecessary misunderstadnings.
In any case, I want to isolate and discuss what I percieve to be some of the elements that cause friction between the two
Jingoism
The creeping jingoism that I detect among bloggers and commentators stems from a misunderstanding that America's exceptional political regime and historical experiences just isn't applicable to any country. James Bennett pointed out to me that Americans sometimes put civilizational values ahead of their national interest (cf Wilson's 14 Points) while Europe (James' original example was France but the general point in applicable to the continent) puts its national interest ahead of civilizational values. Americans regard Europeans as hypocritical while the latter views the former as annoying idealist with a messiah complex and nuclear weapons.
Indeed one of the most infuriating American traits is the facile belief that Americans are the fons et origno of democracy, capitalism, pluralism etc. No they aren't. They've astonished- and continue to astonish- the world with what free people can accomplish to live life as they please under law and an open society. However, Americans don't have a monopoly on that capacity to astonish the world. I'd make the same arrogant claim for Canada and Europe but that's beside the point. What's fundamental is that everyday, both sides of the Atlantic demonstrate that tolerance, dissent, respect for pluralism, decency and the other virtues not only create workable political systems but establish a civilizational ethos that's worth adopting.
The perception that the Europeans don't care about civilizational values while the Americans care too much is to me one of the essential causes of tension between the two. I don't know if these perceptions can be fully erased; I doubt it, but if both sides learn that each is committed to the West's civilizational values but each takes a different route in their preservation, evolution and improvments, a lot of the tension would lessen.
Fuzzy militarization
Another source of tension and misudnerstanding is what I call fuzzy militarization. The Americans have demanded that Europeans spend more for defense. I agree with the Americans that the Europeans (and Canadians)reduced too much their defense expenditures to take advantage of the peace dividend at the end of the Cold War.
Nonetheless, the Americans aren't exactly helpful- exactly what do they want the Europeans to spend on? Which military domains? And how much? Deep down I don't think the Americans really want Europe to spend too much on defense? Why? The American military establishment is deeply fearful that if the Europeans did take Washington's demand seriously and devoted money to their defense budgets, the continental militaries would embrace the revolution in miltary affairs with such dedication to rival seriously the American military. Don't scoff, history has precisely such an example: the 1903 German naval law. German's navy at the beginning of the last century was a costal defense flotilla, by 1914, it rivalled the British to such an extent that the latter solidified their alliance with France.
I'm not implying at all that Europe and America will go to war in some proximate future against each. Friedman's observation that democracies never fight is quite perceptive with respect toards Europe and America. What would happen is that Europe would defy American more openly; thereby causing deeper strains in the alliance.
Another factor with fuzzy militarization is European distrust that the Americans would veto any military action that the continent might undertake. Again, there are examples: France immediately after the Second World war sent troops to preserve French rule in Indochina. The French were going to lose that region; the question was whether the defeat would be honourable or abject. It was the latter because for 4 crucial years, the Truman administration prohibited the French from using any American weapons or equipment under penalty of sanctions. By the time the threats were lifted during the Korean war, it was too late to prevent an abject defeat that caused the Americans to fill the vaccum with the subsequent history well known to us.
The same thing happened during the Suez crisis during the '56 Arab-Israeli war where the Eisenhower administration sanctioned both France and Britian for their military intervention that resulted in the latter's loss of its empire and influence in the Mideast. Finally, there's the Algerian war where the American government vetoed French NATO troop transfers to Algeria.
I'm not faulting successive American administrations for their decisions; they acted in their country's national interest but I do criticize them for exercising their veto that has sometimes resulted in clamatious consequences.
Limited exposure to European debates
I'm quite awarethat the following generalization has many exceptions and many bloggers will cite counterexamples; nonetheless, by and large, many American bloggers and commentators don't read a second language. Consequently, they only read the brazen anti-American vitriol in English or translated from some European language. In actuality, the European debate is just as complex, contradictory, nuanced and argumentative as the American debate on the war. To reiterate, that anti-Americanism is much more pronounced, vehment and turgid in the European debates is obvious but that given shouldn't obscure that there are other European bloggers and commentators who are pro-American, who support an invasion into Iraq, anti-idiotarian, pro-market and want their countries to combat the terrorist threats more robustly.
So let me conclude that the committment by both the Europeans and Americans to preserve and defend Western civilizational values are still present and still robust. Whatever antagonisms that have arisen, can be lessened if both sides learn that they put into effect that committment differently.
So the girls are a bit bold: so what's the problem?
Molouk Y. Ba-Isa
censors the young Saudi girls on how they dress and act. Indeed, she even complains about a minor incident at an elevator. From her description, they sound like silly teen girls
TM common in the world. Well sorry dudette but you aren't their parents and as long as they don't violate the law or become too brazenly disrespectful (Saudi society is still shames people for inappropriate comportment), there's little you can or should do. What raised my eyebrows was her linkage between putting women on a pedastal and their 'forward' behaviour. Really?! I fail to see how prohibiting women from driving, walking alone without a male relative escort, opening a bank account or travelling abroad without husband or male relative's permission is putting them on a pedastal. On the contrary, the Saudi girls' behaviour is a warning sign that they're fed up with their inferior, can't do anything because you're a female status and are giving the regime the finger by being audaciously flirty within a socially repressed environment.
One last observation, Moluk's son and his friends are very lucky dudes; I wish I had women dropping pieces papers with their cell numbers at my feet.
Por una vez Aznar tiene razón
Ayer El País informó a sus lectores la decisión unilateral de Aznar a apoyar la invervención militar al
Iraq sin o co una resolucióon de la ONU. A pesar que me opongo a Aznar y al PP por su política doméstica hacia las autonomias, la lengua y su centralismo prepotente, no me quejo mucho hacía esta decisión. Aznar tiene razón que España y EE UU tiene más en común que con Irak. Además esta decisión es muy astusta para avanzar los intereses nacionals españoles. Con este apoyo, España tendra una entrada a persuadir la Administración sobre el punto de visita español acerca la Sahara occidental, Ceuta y Meillia pero el verdadero premio es Gibraltar. Los américanos convencerán a Blair de escuchar muy en sérios los própositos españoles sobre la Roca que le guste o no.
L'entrevue avec le p'tit gars de Shawinigan: des bêtises aux foutaises
Hier, il y avait beaucoup des commentaires des blogeurs aux propos de Chrétien lors d'une
entrevue avec Peter Mansbridge commémorant l'11 septembre. Que Chrétien blâme l'Occident
pour sa cupidité pour les attaques d'onze septembre constitue une bêtise. Car si on jette un coup
d'oeil de nouveau, on se rendra compte que les terroristes n'ont pas ?t? des Sierra Léonais, ni
Mayas de Chiapas sinon des Arabes. Non seulement n'import qui mais des jeunes qui ont ?t? des
membres privilégiés dans leurs sociétés. Atta par exemple a pu étudier en Allemagne comme
architecte et m?me grâce à une bourse du gouvernement allemand; d' autres avaient étudiés
l'ingénierie dans des universités occidentales.
En réalité, les terroristes ont été des jeunes professionnels qui ont parvenu des pays o? leurs
expectatives ont été frustrées et les sont encore. On sait très bien que dans plusieurs pays moyens-
orient, les possibilités d'emploi sont minces car les sociétés sont franchement incapables de les
absorber en raison de l'incompétence étatique qui contrôle tout aspect de la vie y compris
l'économie au point d'asphyxier tout . L'état étant autoritaire ne peut jamais permettre ces jeunes
ambitieux ? gagner leurs vies car avec leurs esprit innovateur, contestaire, sceptique, ils risquent
d'ébranler cet autoritarisme pour le remplacer avec quelque chose d'autre. Présentement, cette
quelque chose d'autre est le retour aux sources- l'uléma sous le Prophète au 8e
siècle. Ce n'est pas tout le monde qui prône ainsi mais la plupart de musulmans arabes supportent
cette vision des choses
.
Néanmoins, le rapport ONU sur le développement dans les pays
arabes exposent une situation tragique pour ne pas dire catastrophique. Mais ce n'est pas dû à la
cupidité occidentale pour le pétrole. L'embargo en 1973 n'a pas bénéficié de tout les économies
occidentales. Au contraire, ça a provoqué des profondes bouleversements pendant une décennies.
L'une des véritables causes du terrorisme originaire du Moyen-Orient, c'est une incompréhension
de comment la plus, forte, la plus avancée, etc des civilisation a pu tomber de la gloire à une si
profonde décrépitude. Leur réaction face à cette situation c'est des rechercher des coupables
externes au lieu de réfléchir à des facteurs internes. Ce n'est pas en rétourant aux sources
nécessairement qui solutionnerait le marasme qui infligent le Moyen-Orient.
Bill Allison's reminder: Arabnews isn't always wrong
Yesterday, Bill
commented that Arabnews isn't always wrong. A good example was the paper's criticism that the
Bosnian Serb government was attempting to erase history and impose historical amnesia on the
events of Bihac and Srebrenica. I agree that this is a serious development and I'll want to see the
European reaction. In the meantime, let me throw a gentle challenge to Arabnews: what steps will
you take to stop this falsification of history?
Arabnews: ¿Por qué enseñar el inglés?
Arabnews discute sobre la decisión de enseñar el
inglés en las escuelas primarias.
Las razones tienen sentido y razonable etc. Mi única reserva es que los sauditos no se deben
limitarse sólo al inglés. El mundo es ajeno y ancho y no todos los países hablen inglés. A pesar
que EE.UU. tiene las más dinámica economía y es el lugar más influyente al mundo acerca la
cultura, ciencias, tecnología, etc es una idea prudente a diversificar el comercio entre países.
Además, ofrecer a los jóvenes la posibilidad de estudiar otras lenguas tiene la ventaje de abrir
nuevas puertas a otros países.
L'entrevue avec le p'tit gars de Shawinigan: des bêtises aux foutaises
Hier, il y avait beaucoup des commentaires des blogeurs aux propos de Chrétien lors d'une entrevue avec Peter Mansbridge commémorant l'11 septembre. Que Chrétien blâme l'Occident pour sa cupidité pour les attaques d'onze septembre constitue une bêtise. Car si on jette un coup d'oeil de nouveau, on se rendra compte que les terroristes n'ont pas été des Sierra Léonais, ni Mayas de Chiapas sinon des Arabes. Non seulement n'import qui mais des jeunes qui ont été des membres privilégiés dans leurs sociétés. Atta par exemple a pu étudier en Allemagne comme architecte et même grâce à une bourse du gouvernement allemand ; des autres avaient étudié l'ingénierie dans des universités occidentales.
En réalité, les terroristes ont été des jeunes professionnels qui ont parvenu des pays où leurs expectatives ont été frustrées et les sont encore. On sait très bien que dans plusieurs pays moyens-orient, les possibilités d'emploi sont minces car les sociétés sont franchement incapables de les absorber en raison de l'incompétence étatique qui contrôle tout aspect de la vie y compris l'économie au point d'asphyxier tout . L'état étant autoritaire ne peut jamais permettre ces jeunes ambitieux à gagner leurs vies car avec leurs esprit innovateur, contestaire, sceptique, ils risquent d'ébranler cet autoritarisme pour le remplacer avec quelque chose d'autre. Présentement, cette quelque chose d'autre est le retour aux sources- l'uléma sous le Prophète au 8e siècle. Ce n'est pas tout le monde qui prône ainsi mais la plupart de musulmans arabes supportent cette vision des choses
.
Néanmoins, le rapport ONU sur le développement dans les pays arabes exposent une situation tragique pour ne pas dire catastrophique. Mais ce n'est pas dû à la cupidité occidentale pour le pétrole. L'embargo en 1973 n'a pas bénéficié de tout les économies occidentales. Au contraire, ça a provoqué des profondes bouleversements pendant une décennies. L'une des véritables causes du terrorisme originaire du Moyen-Orient, c'est une incompréhension de comment la plus, forte, la plus avancées, etc des civilisation a pu tombée de la gloire à une si profonde décrépitude. Leur réaction face à cette situation c'est des rechercher des coupables externes au lieu de réfléchir à des facteurs internes. Ce n'est pas en rétourant aux sources nécessairement qui solutionnerait le marasme qui infligent le Moyen-Orient.
Bill Allison's reminder: Arabnews isn't always wrong
Yesterday, Bill
commented that Arabnews isn't always wrong. A good example was the paper's criticism that the Bosnian Serb government was attempting to erase history and impose historical amnesia on the events of Bihac and Srebrenica. I agree that this is a serious development and I'll want to see the European reaction. In the meantime, let me throw a gentle challenge to Arabnews: what steps will you take to stop this falsification of history?
Arabnews: ¿Por qué enseñar el inglés?
Arabnews discute sobre la decisión de enseñar el
inglés en las escuelas primarias. Las razones tienen sentido y razonable etc. Mi única reserva es que los sauditos no se deben limitarse sólo al inglés. El mundo es ajeno y ancho y no todos los países hablen inglés. A pesar que EE.UU. tiene las más dinámica economía y es el lugar más influyente al mundo acerca la cultura, ciencias, tecnología, etc es una idea prudente a diversificar el comercio entre países. Además, ofrecer a los jóvenes la posibilidad de estudiar otras lenguas tiene la ventaje de abrir nuevas puertas a otros países.
Cold Fury's riposte to den Beste
Cold Fury articulates rather well my view that
Europe- particularly France- isn't as pernicious as den Beste makes them out to
be In fact, I'm growing weary of the French bashing. den Beste confuses officialdom with the people. The Europeans are much closer to the Americans than the punditocracy, bloggers included, make them out to be. The problem is that they're not listened to until it's nearly too late- the LePen victory to proceed to the second round because he dared to address the concerns on immigration and civil insecurity. The victory of the Dutch and Danish right wing parties advocated immigration curbs as part of their platforms highlights the populations' demands that immigrants, particularly from Islamic countries, that they conform to the country's secularized political and social institutions. Indeed, one of the recurrent irritations between the Europeans and Islamic immigrants is that the latter demands rights that simply can't be implemented without metamorphosizing European society into something else. Europeans are sometimes quite unfair to Islamic immigrants but there many who still defend them.
In the end, Mike's right, Europeans and Canadians do value freedoms and the ability to live as one pleases as the Americans. It's just that the former sometimes express that committment differently which bugs the Americans somtimes.
Bush avertie contre le bias anti-musulman
Arabnews a un
article duquel le Président Bush avertie contre tout sectarisme anti-musulman aux É-U. Très bien, un bon appel mais innécessaire car les Américans se sont portés très correctement envers leurs concitoyens et visiteurs musulmans. Cependant, cet avertissement s'appliquerait davantages aux saoudites On ne doit jamais oublier qu'a l'Arabie saoudite le sectarianisme anti-occident est non-seulement tolérés mais c'est une politique d'état.
Le regime a resté scandaleusement silencieux envers les mullahs qui pendant 20 ans ont prêché une haïne déroutante contre les non-musulmans; le régime practique l'intolérence lorsqu'il interdit les chrétiens de porter avec eux leurs bibles ou celebrer leurs messes même dans l'intimité de leurs maisions.
Donc, au leiu de citer élogiuesement un avertissement de Bush contre la haine aux musulmans, les saoudites devront l'appliquer dans leur pays.
Srebenica: it's not forgotten
How dare Arabnews protests that no one remembers
Srebrenica! While the Saudi sat on their asses funding the Islamic integrist movements around the world, the world saw on TV the Serbs move in and the Dutch battalion literally stand aside while the paramilitaries slaughtered the Bosnian men. In fact, during and after the massacres, journalists were all over the event and viewers have sufficent information to know what transpired.
Indeed, the Dutch parliament lauched an official inquiry over the conduct of its soldiers. The final report castigated the DUTCHBAT as too small, inadequately armed with an area far too large for the number of refugees there. The result was that the Dutch defense minister, the Chief of Staff resigned due to their failures. Further the same report blasted the UN for being far more ambitious than what the resources at hand and the institution's moral failure to rush heavier armed troops to stop the massacre. The same failure that occured in Rwanda
The War Crimes tribunal for Yugosalvia is judging the massacre through Milosevich's trial as well as past convictions. Whether, the Milosevich verdict will bring closure or justice remains an open question, but to claim that the world has forgotten is slanderous.
Science in Islamic civilization
Contrary to ill-informed prejudice, Islamic science isn't an
oxymoron Nevertheless, One could argue that while Islamic civilization helped preserve the scientific traditions of the Ancient World and made significant contributions in math, medicine and astronomy during the medieval period, Islamic scientists haven't been able to contribute much since then. Indeed, isn't it significantly telling; profoundly so, to observe that there are more Moselm scientists in the U.S. then in
all Islamic countries combined That's a far more damning potrait of the low state of science in Islamic lands than preening on about past glories. Once again, the UN development report on Arab countries is corroborated; the question remains what wil the Arabs and other Moslems do to resolve the situation?
L'Onze de septembre
Avui celebrem nostra diada quan perderem nostres llibertats i instuticions automòniques per haber perduda la guerra.
Felipe i el seu Decret de la Nova Planta volien acabar amb les llibertats i institucions 'medievals' que desde Olivares es veïen com un entrebanc a la unitat nacional i la mobilització de recursos per l'interés tal com Madrid ho definiria.
La cosa que més m'enfada des primers Bourbons- Felipe i Carlos III es la prohibació del català. Típic centralisme del depostisme il.lustrat que mirava amb molt degust la diversitat lingüítisca i política com un afront. Més ben dit, aqeulla divesitat representava un gran amenaça a les pretensions del monàrques il.lustrats que realment cregueren que solament la unitat nacional permetiria llurs països a desenvolupar tranquil.lament.
James Bennett pensa que pel Occident ha siguda una llàstima que Catalunya s'unià amb Castella. Ho entenc el sentiment però sota la Casa d'Austria, el centralisme no era tan fort; és només durant la segona fase de la Guerra de Trenta Anys (1630-1648) quan Olivares ambicionava massa pels recursos que tenia a la ma que girà la seva atenció a Catalunya. La gran error d'Olivares es que volia que els catalans paguéssin per la guerra sense contrapartits como deixar els catalans anar-s'en a les colònies si volien; encoretjar les empreses catalanes a buscar nous mercats i doncs diversificar
La pau social que Espanya fruïi a l'endemà de 1714, fou temporària. La guerra napoleònica en la Peninsula provocà una explosió social- el surgiment dels guerrilles i l'aixament popular contra el francesos. Per a mi, la Guerra peninsular despertà canvis permanents. La gent reclamaven molta més participació en la vida política no sols com a recompensa per la reistència ans també per que no l'han fet pas tan malament.
L'història subsequent es de faccions. Uns que volien obrir el pais al món; els altres que s'opposaven feroçment. Una lluita que no ha terminada fins 1975 quan s'ha comprès per obrir-sel al món.
L'altre onze de septembre: l'atac a EE UU
Avui també,l 'onze de septembre pren una significació per un altre pais. Fa un any que terroristes mataron uns 3000 persones quan se secuestaren 4 avions. 2 havien col.lidats a les Torres bessones; 1 al Petagon i un que s'estrallà en un camp a Pensylvannia que tenia com objectiu la Casa blanca.
Contràriament no reminisçaré d'on estava, que feia per que en fin de compte no tinc cap importància. Reflexiono sobre l'estupidesa de bin Laden- no sols per les matançes en EE UU o durants els 8 anys endarrere-ans també que havia comès un gran error d'atacar els edicifis esmentats com si els americans haguéssin ensorrats a través aquest cop de teatre macrbre. Sí efectivament, bin Laden i la seva camarilla miren al món com si fossi un teatre i cadascú juga un paper. Desafortunadament pels taliban i al Quada lluny de col.lapsar en xoc, es mobilitzaren amb contudència, ràbia i tristor. Pel àrabs i els muselmans, el fet que EE UU ha enviat uns centars de soldats mig-camí del món en un pais de malhumor perdut en les muntanyes, sense al.liats, sense gaire coneixements del terrany político-ethnlogic i vèncer-los es prou sigificatiu. Demonstra una resolució de guanyar a pesar dels sacrificis.
Tanmateix, Al Quada ha guanyat una victòria estratègica: la divisió del Europa continental i EE UU.Em preocupa molt per que en els ulls del islamistes integristes no hi ha diferències entre ambdós. Un es el bastard descendent cultural, social, religiós i polític del altre. Però els commentaristes i els bloggers a cada costat de la riba sí qui hi veuen profundes divisions. Divisions que existeixen peò que els elits de cada costat agreujen gratuïtament. Presumo que els commentaristes americans no remarquen la dissònancia entre els elits i la gent ordinària europeus. Els americans han descuidat que el èxit de LePen i les victòries electorals en alguns països europeus de la dreta moderada, exposa que la gent ordinària n'esta farta d'un multiculturalrisme fals, dels immigrants que exigeixen demandes que cap pais acollidor pogui permetre sense perdre sa propra identitat i uns elits que s'en han vengut i s'adonen ara que llurs credencials d'anti-xenofob, anti-colonialista, un gran etcétera no els han servits de res. Pitjor encara.
No dubto que els americans guanyaren aquesta guerra. La raó es tan senzill com banal: persones lliures lluiten feroçment per que el resultat realment els importa. Es de vida o de mort
La llibertat, l'obertura al món i a les coses, la tolerància, la novetat i l'innovació correixen els seus contraris.
Marital relations part II
Trina and I had another lengthy discusion about martial relations. She gently pointed out that I misunderstood her original question. She was more interested in the relationship between husband and wife qua couple than grand theories oftime and anthropology. That clarified matters for me and I hope that I can do justice to her question
The couple
It's reasonable to state that fampay an essential role in socializing the future couple (yes yes the schools even more so in the advanced industralized countries; however, in some of those countries the family is sufficently robust that it opposes what the schools have in mind sometimes)
Families reflect and inclucate the society's values and expectations better known and culture. Nevertheless, the couple do have some leeway to adapt those values and expectations to their circumstances. For example, in industrailzied countries, couple do try to distribute more equitably the domestic tasks. Husbands get up early in the morning to feed the baby; wives pays the car insurance despite the numerous studies which show that wives are still burdened with the lion's shre of domestic tasks on tiop of their work.
Trina made an arresting observation that men can't have a career or establish a business in doesmtic houscleaning while women canm be engineers, astrophysicists and CEOs ofFortune 100 companies. After some thought, I would've pointed out that some men are flocking towards nursing whic still remains a predominantely female domain.
Relativization
Returning to the marital relations, I think that there's a certain relativism with repsct to society's expectations of what a couple should do and be. First, society evolves; what it approved in terms of the behaviour and roles in the past becoms disapproved. 40 years ago it was rare that a wife would work outside of the house. Today, the society encourages women to do so. Second, the relationship between husband and wife is always dynamic. they have to get to know each other's emotions, character; illness, promotions, kids also change the relationship. Often we hear and read the 'marriage experts' drone on about how the couple reaffirm their marriage committments everydauy. I suppose that the case but it's neither as sappy or as solemn as they make it. Couple are always helping each other out: the husband takes the kids to soccer; the wife fixes the broken toilet.
Doing things together
In the end, what makes marital relations work is doing things together. I don't mean just the fun stuff like sharing the bed but also going out on a picnic; shopping for a car together; watching a video on a rainy weekend. True there are moments that the couple might have a hobby that that they do on their own but that helps recharge the relationship as both can show or tell the other what's been done and each can be proud of the other's accomplishments.
In conclusion, marital relations are a balancing between continuity and evolution based on committment that they,re better with each othr than alone or with someone else.
Why Amazon.ca rulez!
I had some free time during my short trip last weekend. So I decided to pop by a bookstore that wasn't very far from the federal legislature. I wanted to get a copy of Zamoyski's book I didn't see it so I asked the reference desk if it was in stock. Nope. So then I asked for 5 other authours and the store didn't have.
I admit that my reading perferences arereally dry and boring but that's not the point. The problem is that a bookstore some 200 m from the federal parliment didn't have such books in stock. Ordering books from the bookstore is such a hassle; first, the personnel act as if its such an inconveninece to order a book; second the book in question will take several weeks to come. I remember very well in the mid80s how much I hated ordering books from my local bookstore. I once place an order that never came. Third, the book selection is utterly homogenous from store to store. How many copies of Tom Clancy, Daniel Steelle or Harry Potter do we really need? Then Heather Reisman wonders why Amazon is so popular in Canada.
Despite Besos' ill-concieved plans to sell toys and electronic equipment, no other place- physical or virtual- has a greater selection of books at relatively reasonable price. Better yet, order don't take that long to ship. For me, it's a waste of time to go to an English language bookstore and look in vain fofr title that I'll never find. As for the French titles, right now, Amazon's is still limited but the discounts aren't too bad. Don't forget that Quebec readers have to pay 15,56% taxes on books. Even a 5% discount is significant because the readers don't pay the Quebec tax.
Amazon's Canadian branch challenges all Canadian bookstores, regardless if they're independent or Heather Reisman's, to serve the customers and stop whining about Amazon; competition will sort out the winners. Start stocking a greater variety of subject matter in your physical stores, develop really excellent customer relations, fill the book order within 48 hours unless the book is out of print or the publisher is reprinting it; no more it'll take X weeks for the order. Offer me discounts that match or better Amazon's and link your website with your bookstores. Can't find a book? Order from the website and pick it up at the local branch for an additional discount or vice versa: order the book from the store and have it sent directly to your house. Earn my loyalty and patronage
