Redstate

Your post is ignorant, noxious, and deeply insulting. This site deserves better.

Re: Canada, as a whole, is a smarmy country filled with spineless liberals who allow a corrupt government to clamp down on freedom.

This is a very crude exagerration. While you will not find much of a Religious Right in Canada (in the Christian world that's pretty unqiue to the USA), you will find plenty of solid conservatives. Anglo-Canada especially is very similar in culture to the American states that lie just across the border: the Atlantic provinces with New England, Ontario with New York and Michigan, the Prairie Provinces with the Dakotas and Minnesota, Alberta with Montana, BC with Washington and Oregon, the Yukon with Alaska. Politically, Canada is skewed off by Quebec with its French culture (although the Quebecois are not espcially enamored of the European French either). If you could amputate Quebec from Canada, and the South from the USA, the two countries would be virtual twins, at least culturally.

What in the world are you talking about?

with Erick's pithy description of Canada.

Well done, Erick.

That without the South the US isn't worth that much and without Quebec, Canada would be much better.

Don't throw out the whole country just because it keeps electing liberals by a plurality.

Canada, as a whole, is a smarmy country filled with spineless liberals who allow a corrupt government to clamp down on freedom.

That kind of vast generalization is a step to far Erick.  This is a good opportunity for the Conservatives in Canada (who only recently started receiving Fox News) to parlay into power.  Lets focus the angst toward the ruling liberal party instead of toward the entire country.

That being said, I just can't help but think about this.

Even if I do still smart at the outcome of 1812.  Fact is, Canada fought the world wars long before we did.  Its military tradition is a proud one:  Canada had the fourth-largest navy in the world in 1945; Canadians were intrepid on the battlefields of Europe and Korea; NORAD would never have helped keep the peace without Canadian participation; and Canadian snipers have done themselves proud in the wastes of Afghanistan.  Furthermore, let us not forget that the Canadians accepted all those diverted flights on 9/11 -- flights which could have themselves held terrorist crews.  That deserves gratitude.

Inasmuch as there are things to dislike about Canada, it lies in the Canadian rejection in the past generation of the things that made Canada great -- in particular, its abandonment of its military tradition and its eschewing of its British heritage (moral, legal, and formal).  The strain of anti-Americanism in Canadian public life is also juvenile and detestible.  All that being said, though, one still cannot dismiss Canada out of hand.  The prairie provinces are still strongholds of conservatism; the Atlantic provinces are hardy redoubts of working-class cultures familiar to any American; and even Ontario and BC are not wholly alien to us.  I look forward to someday welcoming the first two groupings into the United States someday.

So mock not Canada. Just its rulers.

provinces as being more like an impoverished Mississippi with lots of mosquitos, ice, and snow.

You guys are letting me have any fun.

Truth be told, I honeymooned in Canada, have Canadian beer in the fridge, and count most of my closet friends as Canadian.  But it is just so fun to write lines like that because it drives them all so crazy.

During a brief sojourn through Atlantic Canada eleven years ago, I enjoyed my time there. It is beautiful.

The people were nice, and I'd love to go back again.

maybe I just need more sleep, but a little changing of the modifier (most of vs. whole country) and I wouldn't have said anything.

but as an American that spends quite a bit of time in Alberta, I can assure you that they would not consider joining the U.S.  They are proud Canadians, flags fly everywhere.  They have big issues with Ottawa, as they should, but while the U.S. is a valued trading partner (except for that beef thing, it isn't playing well there) the folks there are not interested in becoming part of this country.

A couple of years ago, I was fortunate enough to be on stage during a large music festival outside of Edmonton.  During a break between bands, 30,000 plus young people spontaneously broke out in their national anthem.  It was incredible.

Forgive me for jumping in like this, my first post.  

There's actually an interesting and reasonable point in this post: Canadian citizens are unable to get information about a probe into government corruption because the investigator has, apparently legally, ordered that information suppressed.  We don't like it when stuff like that happens here, Canadians shouldn't like it either.  They do, after call, claim to be an open, democratic society.

I'm not sure exactly what point we're supposed to draw from that, but in any case the point itself is somewhat obscured by this:

"Canada, as a whole, is a smarmy country filled with spineless liberals who allow a corrupt government to clamp down on freedom"

Sorry, but it's hard for me to do anything but laugh at prose like this.  Not in the sense of mocking it, but it just reads like a self-parody of conservative rhetoric.  It sounds like a line from "Dr. Strangelove" that got left on the cutting room floor.  

It makes it very difficult to take anything else in the post seriously.  It's like trying to have a reasonable conversation with someone wearing a clown nose.  This is not a personal attack, it's just a comment on the unnecessary and almost absurd hyperbole of the writing style.

Cheers -

"I look forward to someday welcoming the first two groupings into the United States"

Now there's an interesting new wrinkle.  Is this idea original and unique to you, or is it widely held?  I have to say I haven't heard it before.

What are the opinions of the two groupings in question on the matter?

Cheers -

Your comments are helpful and insightful.  Thank you for adding them.

is that we are truly blessed to have a Bill of Rights, and particularly a First Amendment.

OT, but for what it is worth, the massacre not too long ago of four Mounties in Alberta sent shockwaves through the country and got people taking again about their court system (oh no, not their court system too!) and it's leniency on crime.  My information comes from friends who work for the RCMP, so they are a just a little bit biased, perhaps.

There are enough idiotic moves by the Canadians to give support for Erick's ridicule, but I also know some truly excellent people up there, gorgeous scenery, great cities and you gotta love that accent....Eh?

It comes up every time the Quebecois start wheezing about independence. I works both ways, around the time to the Meech Lake Accord some politicians in the Maritimes started making noise about asking the US to annex them if Quebec declared independence.

Erick you might have Canadian friends and you might drink Canadian beer, but this post betrays a profound ignorance of Canadian law.

Firstly, the government has not slapped a publication ban on testimony, Judge Gomery has. Gomery is the one heading an independent inquiry into the allegations of corruption surrounding the Liberal Party's misuse of government funds.  Indeed, the former Prime Minister has sought to have Gomery removed on the basis that Gomery is biased against him.

Secondly, with the exception of the three current witnesses, this has been an open inquiry.  The reason that a publication ban on this particular testimony has been imposed is due to the fact that these three individuals are facing criminal charges in respect to their connection to this scandal.  There is a substantial body of case law in Canada that states that a failure to impose a publication ban in these types of situations would result in a dismissal of the criminal charges due to the fact that the accused would not be able to recieve a fair trial.  Part of the rationale behind this is the fact that under our Charter of Rights an accused has the right not to testify against himself during a criminal trial.  However, in an inquiry such as this, all witnesses can be compelled to testify but such testimony cannot be used in any subsequent proceedings.  In order to ensure that jurors don't hear evidence that would potentially not be before them in the criminal trial, a short term ban on publication is imposed.

If this case was happening in the U.S. there would be no need for a publication ban because the individuals involved would simply plead the fifth amendment.  

Thirdly, Gomery not only has the power to impose the ban, he has the power to enforce the ban through contempt proceedings.  A person who knowingly breaches a court order is guilty of contempt.  

More generally Canada does have constitutional protection of free speech and freedom of religion, however, we also have constitutional protection for fair trials.  Occasionaly constitutional freedoms will conflict and in these cases the right to a fair trial will trump, for a limited period of time, the right to freedom of speech.

I assume you are joking when you refer to the Queen abdicating her responsiblities.

Re: That without the South the US isn't worth that much and without Quebec, Canada would be much better.

You've got to be kidding. While the South has changed a lot since the 1960s, and has become a more economically progressive region, if you took away the 11 states of the Old Confederacy you'd still have the bulk of the US population, its wealth-generating enterprises, and its cultural, scientific and educational institutions intact. In many ways the South still takes more than its gives to the rest of the nation.

Without the South there'd be no gumbo, jambalya, fried chicken, buttermilk buscuits, coca-cola, fried pork rinds, fried okra, fried corn, creamed corn, vidalia onions, fried vidalia onions.

Without the South there would be nothing, nothing I tell you!  At least nothing fried and without that, by God what is there?!

camping on Lake Superior on 9-11. The outpouring of pro-American support and sympathy was astonishing. As I drove east across northern Ontario to North bay, then south to Toronto, there were Americans flags everywhere in the small towns, and churches which had posted signs reading "God bless USA". In Toronto the US consulate was under siege from immense heaps of flowers.  The televised memorial from Ottawa was overwhelming. Yes, there's a certain knee-jerk anti-Americanism up there, but it isn't really serious, more like sibling rivalry than outright hatred. Of all the nations of the world Canada really is our "little brother" and we ought not be provoking unnecessary family hostility.

I know a good bit about Canadian government and Canadian law.  As such, I did not say the government put up a "publication ban" but that there was a "publication ban" enforced by the commission.

As for the Queen bit, much like my intro paragraph, I was joking.    People need a sense of humor, eh?

That's exactly the incident I'm thinking of, actually.

Fair enough, though I did think your original post could be interpreted to mean the government had imposed the ban.

You left out grits, pulled pork, pan fried catfish, red beans and rice, muffaletta, and sweet iced tea.  Did I mention grits?

We would be awfully hungry up here without you all.

Cheers -

I agree with Bob Smith when it comes down to it about the reasons behind the publication ban - that it's based on ensuring a fair criminal trial for the witnesses. But the 'liberal, smarmy, holier-than-thou' Canadian attitude to our neighbors to the south has been an issue that I continually address in classes, with friends etc. This attitude can be seen with respect to our foreign policy (the very public dithering of our prime minister over the war in Iraq, for example). I feel the need to ask, as George Bush reportedly leaned over to Paul Martin in a recent meeting and hinted about future presidents asking the question: "why should the United States continue to militarily protect Canada", aware of Canada's decision to publicly refuse to participate in the missle defense system. Its refreshing to hear other contributors post about Canada's respectable military history, because it seems that for the past few decades Canadians have been all too comfortable to "let" the US protect us, provide us with business opportunities through their "morally repugnant wars"; yet to offer public support for the US agenda that serves us both is political suicide. Canada postures like the enlightened, refined British cousin of the muscular, "global bully" they see as America. When the bully goes out and uses his muscle to steal some lunch money, we're the first to call him barbaric, "idiots (check out MP Carrolyn Parrish's celebrated comments on Canadian publicly funded television about GWB). However, the bully doesn't really take too much offense (he's so big, doesn't really notice/care about the sniping comments of his cousin), and when he comes to us to share the benefits of being powerful, our 'moral indignation' seems to go up in smoke like so much BC bud that we sell you. Please take into consideration that there are a number of Canadians that feel ashamed of this hypocritical stance and wish their government would take a principled position either way (with you, or actually against you, not this lame cycle of publicly complaining about your policies, then profiting from them).

Mike Johns, a frustrated Canadian

"I feel the need to ask, as George Bush reportedly leaned over to Paul Martin in a recent meeting and hinted about future presidents asking the question: "why should the United States continue to militarily protect Canada", aware of Canada's decision to publicly refuse to participate in the missle defense system."

Has anyone threatened to attack Canada recently?  I missed it if so.

Cheers -

Re: I agree with Bob Smith when it comes down to it about the reasons behind the publication ban - that it's based on ensuring a fair criminal trial for the witnesses.

Yes. Media bans on pending trials have long been part of Canadian legal custom. A generation ago, when I was a teenager in Michigan the Detroit newspapers were being confiscated at the Windsor border because they were reporting on a sensational murder trial there (Yes, Canadians have sensational murders too!) and the judge almost caused an international incident when he tried to have radio and TV coverage in Detroit shut down as well.

And were I to attack the United States, I'd rather go overland than try a mass coastal invasion. Only two routes for the former.

Has anyone threatened to attack the contintental US by force of military arms lately?

More to the point:

Canada has contributed their fair share, if not more, to US led efforts in Gulf War I, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.  If you want to walk it back historically, they made significant contributions in WWI and WWII.

They aren't slackers.

Maybe they don't see a lot of value in missile defense.  Maybe they don't see a lot of value for them in missile defense.  In either case, Bush leaning over to ask Martin why the US should continue to "defend Canada" if they don't play ball reminds me more than a little, and uncomfortably so, of a conversations beginning with the words "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse".

Cheers -

Granted, one intent on unilaterally disarming, but still. If someone -- granted, this is rather forward looking, but still -- looks to fire missiles at the United States, it'll just be easier to intercept those missiles over Canada than at the last minute. I have faith in our ability to adapt. Any missiles that fail over Canada are their problem.

As far as "an offer they can't refuse," it's nothing of the sort. They should just be aware that if someone goes through them to come at us, we'll likely, at that point, have to go through them, too.

A lot of good Moosehead will be wasted that way, too.

No one warned Spain before blowing up their trains.

"As far as 'an offer they can't refuse', it's nothing of the sort".

I'm actually happy to defer to you on this point.  I don't know the actual circumstances of the incident in question, I'm sort of just responding to Bob Smith's reportage.

I will say that I find the diplomatic style of the Bush administration to be less one of leadership through persuasion, and more one of drawing lines in the sand.  And, IMO, unnecessarily so, and, IMO, to our detriment.  That is, more or less, the motivation of my response.

Your point about preferring to intercept missiles earlier rather than later is more than apt.

Cheers -

Doverspa -

That is correct.  Many, many nations now face previously unanticipated threats.

On the particular topic of missile defense -- the specific threats missile defense is intended to defend against are among the least likely to come out of the blue.  They are also pretty unlikely to address Canada as a target.

The more significant point I wished to raise, which was probably, and perhaps unfortunately, obscured by the sarcastic tone of my post, was this: if we are truly interested in enlisting Canada's support for and participation in a contintent-wide missile defense system, having George Bush lean over to Martin and ask the question "why should we continue to contribute to Canada's defense" might not, in the long run, be the best and most productive way to achieve that goal.  

Are we interested in developing an ally or a thrall?

My two cents.

Cheers -

We'd rather an ally. We'll take a thrall. What's not acceptable is footing someone else's defense bill and then being told we can't have their assistance with our defense.

That I agree with.

"What's not acceptable is footing someone else's defense bill and then being told we can't have their assistance with our defense."

I get that.  I can see that argument, clearly, with cold war Europe, with Taiwan currently, and others.

However -- can you explain in what way we are footing Canada's defense bill?

Who has threatened Canada?

If anyone, to what degree is any such threat directed at Canada, as opposed to being a side effect of threats directed to the US?

In short -- what does Canada owe us in the area of national defense?

I am, genuinely, interested in your answer.  Others with relevant information, please feel free to weigh in.

Cheers -

During the 1994 debate over the Clinton health care proposal, Senator David Durenburger (from Minnesota) said that the United States could not enact a single-payer health care system similar to what Canada has.  

Then he continued his statement and said, ".....because then Canadians would have no place to go for their health care."

With a Canadian fellow recently (not a Québécois) while doing some research on handheld optical scanners for a client of mine.  Although the call started out as a narrow inquiry into a boring and ubiquitous piece of everyday supermarket technology, the Canadian fellow was, I have to say, an extraordinarily cheerful, helpful fellow and an engaging conversationalist.  I couldn't help but notice that I spent more than 25 minutes on the telephone with him, in a long, meandering tete-a-tete that spanned everything from the arcane history of optical character recognition technology to the star-crossed fortunes of the Chicago Cubs.  Truly a nice guy, very well-educated, articulate, and a pleasure to talk with.  If I had spent any more time on the phone, I would have had to put him on my Christmas card list and invite him to my next family barbecue just out of sheer obligation.  I had to check my email afterward to see if I had received an InstaKiss ;-)  During the conversation, BTW, I got the feeling that he was very interested to be talking to someone from the U.S., since we are, after all, reputed to be such a brutal, dangerous and warlike race of people.

Of course, we got absolutely nothing accomplished, and it turned out he had nothing suitable to sell me, but it sure was a lot of fun!  The bill for the call was interesting, uh, too...

Anyway, Erick, I forgive you for engaging in some gratuitous Canada-bashing.  It's just part of how we all get along.  My only criticism is that you forgot to link to Matt Labash's recent sketch in the Weekly Standard -- "The Great White Waste of Time"

WHENEVER I THINK OF CANADA . . . strike that. I'm an American, therefore I tend not to think of Canada. On the rare occasion when I have considered the country that Fleet Streeters call "The Great White Waste of Time," I've regarded it, as most Americans do, as North America's attic, a mildewy recess that adds little value to the house, but serves as an excellent dead space for stashing Nazi war criminals, drawing-room socialists, and hockey goons.

at the US in the Northern Hemisphere is going to lob them over the Arctic.

Canada's going to be where we intercept them. It would be nice if they were with the program but I don't see us letting Chicago get vaporized over a technicality.

delivery method for a nuclear/chemical/biological/horrible weapon? My impression was that our borders were still way too porous, and a suitcase bomb makes determining who to retaliate against more difficult.

was Canada's involvement in BMD. Or so I thought, my apologies if I got it wrong.

I can only relay to you guys what i see on the news, but I think the point of Bush sort of 'casually' mentioning the point rather than formally recognizes that there is no IMMEDIATE threat to Canada, but rather a sort of minor annoyance that if there were to be a threat, they would not be able to respond and would need the US. As it stands with the missile defense, we have no problem with you guys shooting them down over our country, but the Prime Minister's big political problem was telling Canadians that he would authorize firing missiles 'per se', because Canadians' 'moral standard' is too high.

That sort of 'we need you, and depend on the trade that your unjust ventures provide us with... except we morally reject your brutish behavior, tsk...

Going to a Canadian university really gives you a look at the depth of American resentment. They're all walking around saying "oh they're such neo-liberals, do anything for corporations, unjust wars etc", while I'm asking "how do you know that you won't just get blown up one day", or "how come our economy does better when the US is in a war"... the answer is because we profit off of those actions just as much.

I think Bush's comment reflects a growing frustration with this stance. Maybe if Canadians are forced to understand where many of their privileges come from they won't be so quick to hold up their noses at the hand that feeds them.

Mike Johns