Check out the Sandwalk: Strolling with a skeptical biochemist. I’m dismayed that it’s been up for a whole week before I noticed.
I’ve already learned something important: Tim Horton is the god-equivalent in Canada. If coffee and donuts inspire similar levels of sexual obsession and freaky legislation in Canada as does religion in the USA, I don’t think I want to hear about it. Too, too kinky.
i can’t eat timmies donuts, and the hot chocolate gives me the shits. my girlfriend says the coffee is like an oil slick…
so in terms o the quality of the consumables, you may be making a valid comparison.
Tim Horton’s shouldn’t be allowed to call their coffee “coffee”. It’s like a badly-remembered simulation of the real thing.
Well, I’ll do my Canadian duty and stand up for Tim’s. I’d travel a long way for those Sour Cream and Old-Fashioned glazed donuts. Once you’ve had them, you can see why Krispy Kreme never had a chance in the Canadian market.
And I’m proud to live in a country where our leading social institution isn’t wrapped up in telling people how to live, just providing a bit of gastronomic pleasure and a place to blab with your friends.
Timmies is more like the Canadian McDonalds, purveying crap that people have been brainwashed to believe is actual food. I pity those who think their coffee is good. Then again, I have the same view of Charbucks, preferring my coffee to be free of charcoal, which taste I’m very sensitive to.
Tim’s demonstrates the power of marketing, no question. Their coffee, while high octane due to its medium roast nature, is definitely not up to my high aesthetic standards except in a pinch, such as while driving all night and needing a boost, in which case it usually fills the bill. Let’s face it, it has a funny taste.
As for the religious aspect of an ubiquitous coffee shop chain, please give us a litte more credit – it really just is a matter of marketing translating into market share and has nothing to do with core ethical beliefs.
Most of us in Canada are areligious libertarians, when you get down to it, well at least I and everyone I know is…and I know a lot of people…
Which is why you have draconian anti-discrimination laws and government-funded universal health care. Riiight.
Yes, Tim Horton’s coffeeshops are pretty ubiquitous up here. There are 10 within 4km radius of my home, and two in my work office complex. The coffee snobs above notwithstanding, it is a familiar place to stop off when you’re on the road, and judging by the huge lineups at the outlets at work each morning, a lot of people don’t mind the coffee. Plus, they are a welcome alternative to the fried food outlets, serving things like soup and sandwiches along with their doughnuts.
If you ever catch the CBC comedy show called Royal Canadian Air Farce, and see their recurring skit set in a doughnut shop, that’s basically the kind of scene you’d find at any Timmy’s any day of the week.
When our troops headed over to Afghanistan, there was a big deal made about Timmy’s going along too, to make the foreign environment seem a bit more like home.
I’m actually a bit surprised that you, a northerner, didn’t know about Timmy’s. I figured that word of such a cultural icon would have made its way outside our borders. Maybe we’re more insular than I thought.
Tim’s is basically a caffeine-break-on-the-401 (or Hwy 17, if we’re going that way) thing for us. And in our case that means not coffee, but tea — and not that “steeped” crap those idiotic commercials are pushing, either. “English Breakfast, bag in, with milk, please”.
As for the a-religious libertarian bit — yes on the first (more or less — MYOB-apathetic would be probably be closer), but Caledonian has a valid point about the second (except predictably, he thinks that’s a bad thing).
As a resident of New England I’d actually prefer to join Canada, I think we’d fit better into the political and social culture there than we do in the US of A.
Caledonian, we’re not that kind of libertarians, and emphatically not the capital-L kind. Most of us are pretty strong social libertarians, of the kind that spawns national politicians who say, “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” And while a lot of us would claim to be one religion or another (not me), in general our religious fervour (except about Tim Horton’s, perhaps) is significantly less than Americans’.
Tim Horton’s really isn’t bad, particularly when you’re on the road in the middle of the night and it’s the only thing open, as it often is. Otherwise, well, I’m not much of the type to sit in the corner coffee shop and kibitz with my buddies; that’s what I have the internet for. *grin*
(As someone who faces discrimination day in and day out, I have to say I kind of like anti-discrimination laws, particularly the kind with teeth. I wish our ODA had the same kind of teeth as your ADA; otherwise it’s a pretty useless waste of legislative draftspeople.)
Considering they’re owned by Wendy’s (or were until recently), you’d think they migth get some exposure SotB. And of course a Canadian national icon wqould be named after a hockey player, right?
About the religious aspect: I have heard it referred to as “Church of St. Timothy’s of the Holey Pastry”.
Off-topic:
RichardDawkins.net has a new Dawkins video available.
Richard Dawkins reads excerpts from The God Delusion and anwsers questions at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia on October 23, 2006. This Q&A features many questions from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty “University” students. In Richard’s tour journal he says:
“Many of the questioners announced themselves as either students or faculty from Liberty, rather than from Randolph Macon which was my host institution. One by one they tried to trip me up, and one by one their failure to do so was applauded by the audience. Finally, I said that my advice to all Liberty students was to resign immediately and apply to a proper university instead. That received thunderous applause, so that I almost began to feel slightly sorry for the Liberty people. Only almost and only slightly, however.”
Great stuff.
For those of you who aren’t from Ontario, Steve is referring to Highway 401, the multilane highway that stretches from the US border at Detroit in the west to the Quebec border in the east. Highway 17 is the Ontario stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway. These are two major highways in this neck of the woods.
The 401 (“four-oh-one”) is the economic backbone of southern Ontario. Incredible volumes of commerce, commuting and tourism flow along it. I remember sitting in the Tim’s at the Ingersol Service Centre (see the bottom of the Wiki page) early one morning, and the highway went from basically empty to wall-to-wall transports in one massive wave. I think that was the pent-up overnight US traffic heading for Toronto. I decided to relax and let the wave subside before heading out again, since otherwise, I’d be a gnat in a stampede of elephants all the way to Toronto (~150km).
And as you can see by the table at the bottom of the Wiki page on the 401, there are Tim Horton’s all along the highway. When my wife was doing her Master’s at UWO in London, Ontario, I became very familiar with a few of them, travelling from Ottawa to visit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
There are two kinds of libertarians. You are neither.
Changing the subject a bit (hope PZ and Larry don’t mind):
For those in Ottawa (Canada, not Ohio, Illinois or Kansas) who do like to sit in a coffee shop and kibbitz, you might be interested in the Book Club of the Humanist Association of Ottawa – next meeting is 7 Dec, topic is Militant Atheism; discussing The God Delusion, and/or other books on the topic. We meet at Bridgehead, a local fairtrade coffee shop (which has way better coffee, tea and pastries than Tim Hortons). (For more info, http://www.ottawa.humanists.net/index_files/Page509.htm )
There are two kinds of libertarians. You are neither.
That article lists 7 variants of libertarianism along with 4 others under “origins” in the sidebar. Am I missing something here?
Listening to a Yank knock Tim Horton’s is laughable considering the beer Yank’s have been drinking for all these years. Sorry. Can’t trust your taste bud’s. ;)
When was it the last time you heard of a coffee shop legislating morals? Tim Horton’s can pose no harm.
Tyler,
I wish you would do just what you said you wanted to do. Then we can blame you, personally.
Theo – I wish I lived near Ottawa. It looks like the Book Club has a wonderful schedule of topics.
dale,
Sorry, you’re going to have to bring me up to speed. What stupid comment of mine on these blogs are you referring to? ;-)
I was just kind of wondering if you Canadians don’t have anything better to do with you time than go on about some second rate coffee shop. OK OK you need your diversions too, but, there is sex an stuff…..
Better than coffee shop banter.
You canadians are kinda like my cousin that comes drunk for holiday dinner and throws up in the kitchen just as dinner is being served…….
Tyler,
It had something to do with you wanting to become part of Canada. Go ahead.
Almost always, Mr. DiPietro.
Canada is much, much closer to socialism (possibly social democracy) than libertarianism. Perhaps if you’d actually read the linked article you’d understand why.
dale,
Give it a rest, man. It’s not like I’m serious about NE joining Canada, and the U.S. Constitution kinda forbids us from seceding.
Still, it’s kind of funny to note your reaction. Some people are so jingoistic that it robs them of their sense of humor. Anything vaguely disparaging of “AMURIKA! (FUCK YEAH!)” is met with the requisite “oh yeah, go ahead and leave, commie!” Which, ironically, makes my point about the difference in political and social culture. The kind of flag-humping I’m talking about might get a pop in the South and the Midwest, but where I live in coastal New England it would likely lead to a discomforting silence and a smattering a chuckles.
Caledonian,
That doesn’t answer my question. You said, and I quote, “There are two kinds of libertarians”. I was challenging that statement on your part with parts of the very article you cited.
Yes, Canada is a social democracy. It’s not libertarian in puristic sense of the fellowship of the CATO institute (which is to be expected, since libertarianism is a fantasy that has never manifested itself in reality), but socially it is true that Canada takes a far more laid-back attitude than the U.S. I think that’s the point the poster you initially responded to was trying to make.
Which you didn’t read, as your challenge makes clear, and your further statements demonstrate so very redundantly.
All of the Canucks who have posted so far seem to be from the East. Here in B.C. Tim Horton’s is known as “Tim Ho’s”, with a nod and a chuckle at their atrocious (but well-marketed) coffee.
As for libertarianism, most Canadians seem leery of any kind of “ism”; we prefer practical governments which give results, which is why, in poll after poll, even we highly-taxed Canadians (relative to Americans) have said that we’d be willing to pay higher taxes to improve our medical system.
Our anti-discrimination laws are, unfortunately, not draconian. We do have a clumsy and ineffective hate-speech law which has led to a couple of prosecutions, and it is a law which most Canadians don’t agree with or see the reason for.
As for you, Caledonian, why don’t you get it out of your system and just say specifically what it is you don’t like about us?
They permit members of protected classes to make accusations to a special court, a court before which individuals can be called without having the right to confront their accuser or even know their identity. Those laws criminalize any speech which “tends to promote hatred” towards protected groups. It doesn’t have to itself be hateful, or incite violence, or even be factually incorrect – as long as in the opinion of the court the speech can be used to promote negative positions about the group, you can be successfully prosecuted. Even worse, those laws have – multiple times! – been upheld by the courts despite the existence of federal laws guaranteeing the right to free speech which contradict them.
It goes way beyond political correctness into Speech Police.
Are you kidding? I -love- Canada! There are only a few things about it that I severely dislike, and its position on free speech is one. I can’t stand willful idiocy, though, and that is precisely what calling Canada’s political climate “libertarian” is.
Oh my, this is surprising news. Especially since Professor Moran didn’t tell us or even hint at it. Speaking of Mr. Moran, I was pleasantly surprised during Mr. Moran’s opening lecture (as he was the second lecturer in my biochemistry class) because he showed pictures of himself and PZ Myers at the sandwalk. The reason, however, for why I found it so surprising was because of an extremely powerful sense of deja vu; I had already seen those pictures on Pharyngula!
Anyway, that’s my two bits.
Which is why you have draconian anti-discrimination laws
I don’t see how they are draconian, they are the basic “the right to swing you mouth ends at the other guys nose” things.
but, there is sex an stuff…..
Being able to get laid with relative ease means we have more time to hang out in coffee shops. The US is far more hung up about sex than we are.
They permit members of protected classes to make accusations to a special court, a court before which individuals can be called without having the right to confront their accuser or even know their identity.
Uh… no. Who is feeding you this crap?
Those laws criminalize any speech which “tends to promote hatred” towards protected groups. It doesn’t have to itself be hateful, or incite violence, or even be factually incorrect – as long as in the opinion of the court the speech can be used to promote negative positions about the group, you can be successfully prosecuted.
Uh… no.
The “Promotion” is a matter of, even if the speech does not openly advocate violence, can it be reasonably construed to impel the audience to violence. It isn’t just a matter of “bad-mouthing”.
There are a whole lot of things you have wrong here.
It goes way beyond political correctness into Speech Police.
It only applies to public speech, and then only to the most egregious shit. You are quite welcome to advocate killing all the (fill in the blank) while having a beer with your buddies.
bPer: Coincidentally, both Steve and I work at a place with 2 Tim Hs in the office complex. Is there more than one of those in Ottawa?
Er, I live in Hamilton Ontario, the birthplace of Tim Hortons… At McMaster University there’s at least 3 within a 2 minute walk from my lab, and they’re all around my place downtown… Strangely though, Hamilton is an extremely religious town, there are churches EVERYWHERE. That’s part of why Mac moved to Hamilton when it burned down in Toronto; it was originally a seminary. Maybe the association between Tim’s and Church is tighter than we think?
Factoid: There is a Tim Horton’s coffee shop in the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
Theo:
Actually, I work in Hull. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that Tim Horton’s sets up multiple outlets in large complexes. It distributes the customer load better, and they can use smaller retail spaces, which probably saves on rent (assuming they only bake at one locale).
A coffee outlet at every turn sort of sounds like the way our American friends describe Starbucks, doesn’t it? And how they go on and on about it too. You’d think they’d have something better to talk about! ;-)
It’s ‘fist’, and causing someone direct physical harm isn’t the same as saying something they don’t like.
Uh… yes. I did quite a bit of research when I was looking into the possibility of moving to Canada, and read several cases regarding the laws in question. The accused do not have the right to know the identities of the people who accuse them in these cases.
Ah, such a wonderfully subjective standard. It can include speech one day, then not another; include certain topics but not others, or not from particular people.
I can accurately state that the average IQ score for people living in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately two standard deviations below the American (and Canadian) average. If sub-Saharan Africans were a protected group (oh, important note: the laws only shield particular groups, not everyone, so you can be hateful towards white males as much as you like), and I made that statement in Canada, would that statement fall afoul of the laws? People have been brought before the court for less.
Demonstrably incorrect in practice.
The laws are offensive enough in themselves, but that they only apply to specific governmentally-recognized groups is even worse.
The merits of such laws are one matter, but the issue at hand is whether Canadian society can be accurately described as ‘libertarian’. Restrictions on public speech such as the ones Canada has are contrary to libertarian principles – not to mention the rest of Canadian society.
Verging on socialist, yes. Libertarian, no.
Well, if nobody else is going to say it, I will. Doesn’t this remind you of Homer?
I don’t like the Canadian “hate-speech” laws — but I understand the thought behind them. It’s a fact that popular propaganda can demonize certain groups to the point where mass-murder of that group becomes acceptable to the general population. And that is possible in a free-speech state. One solution would be for governments to watch for this type of poular propaganda and to mount expensive education programs against them. But most people have a cynical view of what governments of any stripe spew, so this tactic might not work: it might even exascerbate the problem.
But the politicians feel we have to do something, especially considering the Canadian government’s previous bigotted excesses (cf. “One is Too Many” – the official government position on admitting persecuted Jews before and during WWII; the Japanese internment, the Chinese Head Tax, etc., etc.)
It’s a thorny problem, and not open to an easy, ideal solution; and the direction we have gone is, as Caledonian points out, contradictory to other existing legislation, and a strain on our civil society.
It’s ‘fist’
I know. It’s called “humour”.
If sub-Saharan Africans were a protected group (oh, important note: the laws only shield particular groups, not everyone, so you can be hateful towards white males as much as you like), and I made that statement in Canada, would that statement fall afoul of the laws?
No.
And white males are also protected.
It’s relatively easy to bring a case to the HR tribunal, but that is not criminal, and the frivolous ones get tossed… most such cases end up in mediation. I think what you are misunderstanding is the function of the tribunal… it is a substiute for a civil suite. That has two big advantages… it means that the person discriminated against doesn’t need to afford a lawyer, but it also means that the penalties are small amounts compared to a civil suit.
The actual “hate-speech” laws are quite strict about what qualifies (advocacy of genocide in public), and how they can be initiated (only by the AG), and a whole bunch of other limitations and restrictions on the law.
Perhaps you should read the current law, rather than some online representation of what happened to a given person.
If this has anything to do with Ernst, remember that his problems had to do with his playing fast and loose with Immigration.
There’s a Washington Post article that I found particularly interesting. I’m not sure if the WP’s articles can be easily accessed online, but there are various copies on other websites. What follows is a link to a website that contains the text of the article: http://members.tripod.com/monsterwax/canadacensors.html
There are, of course, others.
Caledonian is remarkably proprietary about the word “libertarian.” My American Heritage third edition gives “One who belives in freedom of action and thought” and “One who believes in free will,” both of which definitions fit the commenter’s intention. Card-carrying Libertarians are free to define their partisan position more cloely if they so wish. It all reminds of the time I used “class” in the presence of a gaggle of east block marxists. It of course did me no good to explain that I was not attempting to use in their sense. They recognized no sense other than theirs. They would not relent until I agree that what I meant was something they called a “Schicht” (in German, I never did find out the orthodox English equivalent.)
It’s a fact that popular sentiment can lead to the election of governmental representatives who then repeal the protections afforded to minority groups. And that is possible in a democratic state.
Clearly the only solution is to end democracy immediately and impose martial law.
It’s easy to understand why certain folk would not care for Canada’s ‘free-speech’ law, but what really sends the old irony meter into overdrive is the spectacle of an authoritarian personality attacking others for their failure to agree with *their* understanding of a word like ‘libertarianism’.
Elvis Costello could probably get at least *two* songs out of that!……:)
BTW,…
Another Hamiltonian?
We’re everywhere.
The original Shrine of St Timothy of Horton is on Ottawa Street, the industrial east end. The coffee was “blended” to keep cops and shift workers awake all night, not caress the taste buds of the discriminating. This nonsense only started since Ron Joyce, apostate corporate rat, started “upgrading” the chain, and the doughnuts have suffered terribly. They still kick the crap out of the coagulated lumps of sugar and grease called “Krispy Kreme”, though.
Anyways, it’s not a religion, it’s a fetish.
Which you didn’t read, as your challenge makes clear, and your further statements demonstrate so very redundantly.
Sorry, but if you would stop being such a pompous dick for two seconds and answer the challenge, I might have more of an idea of what you are talking about when you say “two kinds of libertarians”. But I assume, for the sake of argument, you you refer to the two most common schools among those who call themselves “libertarians”, that being the natural law and utilitarian crowds.
So, since this is all built on assumption anyway (thanks to the fact that you prefer being an asshole to having an intellectually honest conversation), I’m going to ask: what about left-libertarians and left-anarchists, most of whom would reject the utilitarian-natural law dichotomy? What about Georgist libertarians (Geolibertarians). And how about eco-libertarians? Just those three expand the category far beyond Randian/Rothbardian natural law and Hayekian/Friedmanite utilitarianism.
Anyway, that would seem to be useless when you look at the fact that the poster you initially responded to was talking about an attitude of social permissiveness rather than an attitude.
Sorry, last word above should be “ideology” not “attitude”.
In my part of NY, which is about ninety minutes or so from the Canadian border, we have Tim Horton’s aplenty–in fact, there’s one about a mile away from me. Does this mean that we’ve been annexed?
Wow, great to see I’m not the only one at Mac (or in Hamilton) who reads this blog….
speaking (as Miriam was) of borders and such, do you suppose Timmies have to decrease the caffeine when selling south of the border, similar to how we have to water down our beer before sending it south?
This article, though a bit dated, is a good description of Tim Horton’s as a social institution in Canada.
I have to defend Horton’s as well. Although as the son of Italian immigrants, I prefer a good espresso (which you cannot get at Starbucks, nor Timothy’s, nor Second Cup), Horton’s is the best non-espresso coffee. Yeah, their pastries are crap, but some of their lunch stuff isn’t bad.
I think what Caveat meant was, when it comes to religion, we’re generally very “live and let live”. A recent issue of Maclean’s (sort of like Canada’s version of Time or Newsweek) had a survey of Canadian religious attitudes. About 85% of Canadians consider themselves religious in some fashion, but the vast majority dislike overtly public displays of faith from public figures. Also, Canadians are generally tolerant of other faiths, but most fear religious fundamentalism of any stripe.
I was born in Hamilton and lived most of life there (got my BA at McMaster). I think a big reason for the number of churches in Hamilton is the city’s ethnic diversity. Every significant ethnic group built their own church at some point, so you have the Italian church, the Polish church, the Croatian church, the Greek church, the Serbian church, the Chinese church, the Ukrainian church, etc.
There are malls in Hamilton that feature two Tim Horton’s. And both do brisk business.
I’ve been reading Pharyngula for over a year, and today I discover there’s at least 3 other Hamiltonians here (though I’m currently a Mississaugan). Figures it would be Tim Horton’s that led to that revelation. ;-)
I miss Tim Hortons. Back home in Fredericton there were lots of Tim Hortons to go to. They were literally everywhere. Now that I live on the west coast I feel deprived. There is only one within walking distance.
I fully admit the coffee is awful. I hate the stuff, but I still drink it whenever I go. But some of the doughnuts are okay. As was mentioned above, the sour cream glazed are wonderful. The sandwiches are pretty good too. And it is a great social place. Find a couple of friends late at night who are tired and need a break from work, head to Timmies and have a good long discussion. The Royal Canadian Air Farce do have this aspect spot on.
Or you could have read the article in which within the first two inches of text they describe the two essential types of libertarians.
Really, Mr. DiPietro, you’re quite shameless.
Burlingtonian.
And as I read this post I look beside my PC to find my Tim Horton’s “Large Double Double”.
I would not use “libertarian” as one of my first choice of adjective to describe Canadian society. A description that I think captures it best is that, contrasting with the US’s “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, Canada is more into “Peace, Order, and Good Government”. I would argue that Canada is more likely to legislate safety, and less likely to legislate morality (recent example: recognition of same sex marriage). With respect to same-sex marriage, there is a case currently being argued that raises some question about just where the libertarian stand would be: In the province of Saskatchewan, there are government employees whose job it is to perform marriages. They are asking to be allowed to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, on the grounds that they personally believe that such things are immoral (on religious grounds), and therefore it is a violation of their rights to force them to marry gay couples. Their lawyer further argues that since there are only a few of the employees raising that objection, it would not cause undue problems for the government, so they should allow it. It sounds so reasonable, doesn’t it? But what if a few of them believed that it was immoral for blacks and whites to marry? What if they believed it was immoral for atheists to marry? (not sure how they would tell…)
bPer and Hamilton contingent: The 2 Timmies at my work complex are not the physically closest I have seen (they are actually almost 1km apart), but the unusual thing is that this is a closed (hightech) complex, so the only clientele are the geeks who work here.
As for Hamilton, I am *almost* from there, having lived there for a few months, and been there almost weekly during my childhood to visit my grandparents. Hamilton has a history of being working-class, “secular Catholic”. E.g: my Jewish/atheist/socialist grandfather was an MD there, starting in the 1930s. When he was looking for a job as a newly graduated doctor, the secular hospital was not hiring Jews, so he ended up at a Catholic hospital.
Tims is sort of like a pseudo-religion….like basketball in Indiana or beauty contests in Texas.
There’s no question that Timmies is a cultural icon up here in the Great White North in the mold of Canadian Tire or street hockey. I can’t claim the coffee is all that great from a gourmand point of view, but obviously many people like it, and like it a lot. Maybe it’s an acquired taste that once you get, is impossible to shake. The wife and I were surprised on a recent trip to find a Tims tucked in the back of a store in Dublin, Ireland. Although apparently they are there too. Just the doughnuts though….no coffee which struck us a tad bizarre. There are 2600+ Tims in Canada, which means Timmie market saturation is greater than McDonalds saturation in the States. That’s how popular it is.
In addition to the tradition of hanging out at the coffee shop on Sundays (see the movie Wayne’s World for a pop culture refence to this activity), also a tradition is the annual Roll Up The Rim to Win contest, held at hockey play-off time. Prizes range from muffins to cars. One time a youngster found an unrolled rim in the trash and asked a friend to roll it up for her…the prize was a new car! A huge brouhaha erupted over who owned the car, the child who found the cup or the one who rolled up the rim. To this add a lawyer who claimed his client was the one who (accidentally?) threw the cup away in the first place, and so it was really his car. The judge settled on the young founder of the cup.
People here don’t realize how different parts of Canada are from each other. On the West Coast — barely any Tim Ho’s. And also, “Canadian Tire”, an icon in the East, is known here as “Crappy Tire” for the low quality of the merchandise they sell.
Ah, but no one is forcing them to marry gay couples. They can simply find a job that doesn’t require that they compromise their ethical principles.
What they’re asking for doesn’t sound at all reasonable to me.
Caledonian: To me your 2 statements are contradictory, but perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying. To clarify: The employees have not asked for alternate government jobs. They want to continue to be marriage clerks but to only marry opposite sex couples.
Ah, Caledonian, you sound like the current Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, who refered to his own country as a “second-rate socialist nation”. Never mind that it’s one of the oldest capitalist economies on earth. Presumably, this notion comes from the fact that Canadians think everyone should have healthcare regardless of their personal wealth. If you want to call that socialist, fine. I’m for it.
FOAF comment: a vice president of Tim Horton’s confided that the more Timmies’ they open, the more people come to hang out them. They’ve changed the social landscape, because a lot of people meet for coffee instead of inviting people into their home sweet mess. I’ve certainly seen job interviews and business meetings at coffee shops. The coffee is mild and strong. Some of them are open 24 hours, so they are great if you have insomnia.
In the rather grey industrial town where I grew up, the Tim Hortons is where people go to hang out nowadays. We didn’t have them Back Then. Yes, they should get a life. But if they did, they’d want to move to Toronto.
I must say that as a Canadian I don’t go to TH very often. Maybe it is because I can’t stand coffee, and although the donuts are good the rest of the stuff isn’t that great …
Once in a while, though, when travelling, I do go, and they are indeed available oodles of places, especially in the Quebec-Windsor corridor.