Don't Cry for Canada

After the 2004 presidential election in the United States, a lot of liberal Americans looked longingly to the north. Canada, the theory went, was a social democracy with a sane foreign policy and humane values that offered a genuine alternative to the right-wing hegemony that the U.S. was about to experience.

But, this week, U.S. television networks and newspapers declared: "Canadians Tilts Right" and "Conservatives Capture Canada."

As shorthand for the election results that saw Canada's Conservative party outpoll the governing Liberal Party for the first time since Ronald Reagan served in the White House, those headlines may be useful.

But the claim that Canada has lurched far to the right is anything but accurate.

Of course, that has not stopped conservative spin doctors in Washington, and their echo chamber in the U.S. media, from announcing that last Monday's election results from Canada represent a seismic shift to the right for the North American continent. David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, was peddling the line that Canadians had rejected "anti-Americanism" -- fostering the lie that the Liberals, who had worked closely with the U.S. government on issues ranging from the occupation of Afghanistan, in which Canada is a major player, to free trade, which the Liberals support, was somehow at war with the U.S. Equally disingenuous was Bob Morrison of the Family Research Council, a Washington-based group that opposes reproductive freedom and gay rights, who announced that: "We are glad to see that Canadians have values-voters too. We can be optimistic about the end of the social engineering as driven by the (Liberal) government."

U.S. conservatives, who can point to little in the way of positive political news from around the world these days, are entitled to their fantasies. But no thinking American should buy into them.

As is the case with most right-wing "analysis" coming out of Washington these days, the truth is a lot more complex than the right-wing spin doctors would have Americans believe.

In fact, the Canadian results ought to be read as a warning signal for U.S. Republicans.

Here's why:

* The Canadian election was held early because the Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Paul Martin had been rocked by a major corruption scandal, which involved the misuse of public funds to promote the government's position on issues involving the relationship between the province of Quebec and rest of the country. All of Canada's major opposition parties ran anti-corruption campaigns, and the first promise of the Conservatives was not a rightward shift in public policies, but rather the restoration of honest and accountable government. In the United States, where corruption scandals have shaken the Republican leadership in Congress -- forcing indicted House Minority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, to surrender his position of power -- Canada's vote-the-bums-out response to government wrongdoing ought to be heartening to progressives who would like to see a similar response in November to the corrupt practices of this country's governing party. The results from Canada indicate the power of a reform message. According to a poll conducted for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 54 percent of Canadians who voted Conservative did so because they thought it was time for a change, while only 41 percent said they favored Conservative policies.

* In order to achieve viability in a country that has repeatedly rejected social-conservative policies, Conservative leader Stephen Harper radically restructured the message and the manifesto of his party. He deemphasized issues such as abortion and gay right, and promised to protect and improve popular social-welfare programs, including Canada's national health care system. As Arthur Cockfield, a well-regarded commentator of legal and political issues who teaches law at Queen's University, noted, "Stephen Harper has moved closer to the center of the political spectrum to broaden support for his party. With plans to help working families, promote access to day care, and bolster the public health-care system... Harper no longer proposes any truly radical changes, but has signalled that he plans to tackle a number of policy priorities that could benefit lower- and middle-income Canadians." In the days following the election, Harper moved quickly to assure Canadians that his Cabinet would include leading moderates, and that his policy agenda would reflect the promises he made during the campaign to govern from the middle rather than the right.

* Harper and the Conservatives kept U.S. conservatives at arms length. Harper repeatedly emphasized his independence from the Bush administration, and his differences with the American right, during the course of the campaign. And, according to reports published in a number of Canadian newspapers, Conservative activists asked U.S. conservative leaders not to cheer their campaign on. A headline in the Calgary Sun read: "SSH! U.S. conservatives asked to keep mum." A pre-election email circulated to conservative activists in the U.S. by right-wing firebrand Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation warned that, "Canadian voters have been led to believe that American conservatives are scary and if the Conservative party can be linked with us, they perhaps can diminish a Conservative victory."

* Even with their move to the center, the Conservatives did not win anything akin to a majority of the popular vote. Infact, the Conservatives won only 36 percent support. Almost two-thirds of Canadians cast their ballots for more left-wing alternatives. In democracies with proportional representation voting systems, which better represent the sentiments of the voters, the Conservatives would not be in a position to form a government. Because Canada, like the U.S., maintrains a single-district, "first-past-the-post" voting system, the Conservatives prevailed over a divided opposition. But Canada has a multi-party political system at the federal level; the U.S. does not. If only 36 percent of American voters back conservative Republicans this fall, Democrats will dominate Congress more thoroughly than they have at any time since the Watergate era and perhaps since New Deal Days.

* The Conservatives did not win a governing majority. Of the 308 seats in the Canadian Parliament, the Conservatives will hold only 124. The remainder will be held by Liberals, with 103; the social democratic Bloc Québécois, which is the dominant party in the province of Quebec, with 51; and the social democratic New Democrats (NDP), with 29. An independent from Quebec holds the final seat. Thus, a Conservative government will have to rely on parties of the left to get anything done. A Toronto Star analysis provides the honest assessment that, "This precarious situation raises real questions about which of the Conservative policy priorities... could realistically get through the Commons... That leads to the bigger question too of how long this government could last and when another election could be unleashed on the country."

* Two parties made sighificant gains in Monday's voting: the Conservatives and the New Democrats. While the Conservatives increased the size of their parliamentary delegation by around 25 percent, the New Democrats increased the size of their delegation by more than 33 percent. In fact, for the first time in years, the New Democrats won more seats in the western province of British Columbia than the Liberals, and the NDP made significant inroads in urban centers such as Toronto. Even though they were operating in a political system that tends to drive voters toward the larger parties, the New Democrats dramatically improved their position by running as an explicitly anti-war, anti-corporate free trade and anti-corruption party. NDP leader Jack Layton explained after the election, in which his party achieved its best showing in decades, that: "While Canadians asked Stephen Harper to form a minority government, they also asked the NDP to balance that government."

The bottom line is this: Canadians have chosen to remove a scandal-plagued government that went by the name of "Liberal." But they only did so because the "Conservatives" promised not to be too conservative. And they voted in a team of left-wing watchdogs to assure that those promises are kept. If that gives U.S. conservatives some small measure of comfort, so be it. But U.S. progressives need not be traumatized by these results. Indeed, they can look forward to the day when voters in their country might choose to throw out a scandal-plagued government that goes by the name "conservative."

John Nichols began covering Canadian politics in 1984, and has regularly reported since then on national and provincial elections for U.S. newspapers and magazines. His articles comparing U.S. and Canadian politics have appeared in a number of Canadian publications.

---

Book Note

In their new book, Tragedy and Farce John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney, two of the country's foremost media analysts and founders of the national media reform group Free Press, dissect the troubling trends in journalism that surfaced in 2004--the decline in resources and standards for political journalism and the organized campaign by the political right to control the news cycle. They show how government decisions made without the informed consent of the American people have led to a media system that undermines democracy. Click here for info on the book, including how to order copies online.

Comments (109)

1. All our comments disappeared again

   Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 7:17pm

2. you are entering a world without laws or patriots

   you are entering... Hamsterland

   Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 7:18pm

3. What happen? Maybe CPT had something to do with it

   Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 7:26pm

4. What happen? Maybe CPT had something to do with it

   Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 7:26pm

5. Sorry for the double post!!!

   Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 7:26pm

6. Something else of note, not mentioned in this article: There is no Conservative representation in the 3 largest Canadian cities; where the majority of the population resides. Instead of being divided into "red" and "blue" states as the U.S. is, Canada is split politically between the cosmopolitan/multi-cultured cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver and its "red-neck"/intolerant, George Bush-loving rural hinterland.

   Posted by wetcoast at 01/25/2006 @ 7:33pm

7. No fair. I get the first shot at posting and then POOF!

   Sorry no-good Canucks, coming down here and stealing our virtual ideas. They just jealous.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/25/2006 @ 7:42pm

8. Maybe its the NSA and the "communications cops" deleting "illegal offensive messages" under the Patriot Act! Its all quite legal dontcha know!

   Posted by leftofcenter at 01/25/2006 @ 7:52pm

9. .

   Canada Dry

   I suppose if there were a God the Blog entry would have vanished and the comments would have remained.

   But it remains that last night a Newshour commentator said: the Canadians are the people who take moderation to an extreme. That says all that Nichols says, and without the serious factual blunders, and says it better.

   Posted by nacl at 01/25/2006 @ 9:33pm

10. WILL C.

    Sorry, don't blame CPT

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/25/2006 @ 8:23pm

    Rio

    Are you OK buddy. I know the hamsterland fantasy is illusionary but damn boy, you're seeing things that just aren't there. Makes me wonder if the rest of your post is based on wingnut talking points or your own lying eyes.

    But then there isn't much of a distinction between the two is there?

    (if only I knew which to believe)

    Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 10:00pm

11. I see poor old RB is still suffering from cerebral anaemia.

    Canada despotic and tyrannical, eh? Well, let's just do another little comparison, shall we?

    Lst time I checked, Canada hadn't falsely accused another country of having WMD so they could invade and steal their oil. In fact, we have our own, RB, the second biggest reserves in the world in the Alberta Oil Sand Banks.

    Last time I checked, no one had been imprisoned in Canada without a trial. However, I am aware of the good old USA mistaking an innocent Canadian for a terrorist and sending him for rendition to Syria where he was tortured. Em, RB, isn't Syria in the axis of evil? So why is your illustrious leader sending anyone there at all, least of all innocent Canadians? Care to speculate? And isn't rendition in contravention of international law?

    Last time I checked, Canada had abolished capital punishment. Wasn't it only recently that you good ol' boys stopped killing the mentally subnormal and minors? But, remind me, RB, you still kill a lot of your citizens each year, don't you? Care to speculate why there is no other western country that does so?

    Last time I checked, Canada's premier was elected on the basis of one man one vote. The voting here is by paper ballot, verifiable. Harper duly won and his right to be PM isn't in doubt. Even by liberals.

    Em, RB, wasn't your CinC selected by a court of judges, some of which his big daddy planted? In short, wasn't he appointed rather than elected? Didn't they refuse Gore the right to a recount in Florida? Weren't there widespread complaints of voter irregularities and voting fraud? Weren't millions, of legitimate Americans kept off the voting register because they were BLACK? Tell me, RV, why isn't the allegedly greatest country in the world (guffaw) capable of setting up an impartial voting system? Care to speculate?

    So, RB, now that I've helped you with your homework, it's time for your test. Just where is the country of the tyrants and the despots? I know, your none too bright, RB, so let me you, ol' buddy. It's the Land of the Freak and the Home of the Knave.

    To conclude, here's an interesting ditty. There has only ever one lynching in Canada. It happened in BC to a native American. Guess who did the lynching, RB? It was some of your lot again, good ol' boys who entered Canada illegally from WA. Do you know, RB, they were dressed as women!! Do you think they did that for a reason or just because they liked it?

    Posted by inveresk at 01/25/2006 @ 10:03pm

12. Nice spin from Mr Nichols...

    but it does ADMIT one point (begrudgingly)...."liberals" can be corrupt; that admission HAS TO stick in his craw.

    Hence his final line, with no evidence to support it that "they can look forward to the day when voters in their country might choose to throw out a scandal-plagued government that goes by the name "conservative."".

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 10:16pm

13. nice work Inveresk. you might also add a relatively tolerant cannabis policy.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2006 @ 10:20pm

14. Might I remind our Republican friends why the Conservatives in Canada spent twelve years in the wilderness before Harper's narrow victory yesterday?

    It was because when they were previously in government, the scandals of fraud, corruption and nepotism made the succeeding liberal government appear like virginal choir boys in comparison.

    Sound familiar?

    Posted by inveresk at 01/25/2006 @ 10:25pm

15. A headline in the Calgary Sun read: "SSH! U.S. conservatives asked to keep mum."

    Sounds to me as though conservative means something completely different in Canada.

    Maybe what it used to mean here?

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 01/25/2006 @ 10:41pm

16. Riobravo is living in some fantasy. We Canadians elected a minority conservative government to clean house after the ruling liberals started to take things, like the right to govern without accountablity, for granted. The conservatives will need the support of at least one of the other parties to pass any legislation, so Rio shouldn't hold breath waiting for the conservative revolut... no, de-evolution to start here.

    A conservative government overture threating some pillar of canadian society (liberal socialistic dogma), where for everyone has access to quality health care for example, would see the government brought down and voted out. On the subject of health care, the Canadian model costs less person and chews up less of GDP than the American model. We perfer to spend the extra cash on education, which maybe explains why we don't seem to let one side or the other have too much power.

    Posted by prokopiww at 01/25/2006 @ 11:19pm

17. Actually, RB, I spend a lot of my winter nights in one or two of your warmer southern states where I find the girls in need of the sort of affection that you cow lovin' southern boys seem incapable of giving them but are plenty good at givin' each other.

    I hear that's a practice you learn to like while you're tending your dawgies or in prison. Or was it one your daddy taught you?

    Posted by inveresk at 01/26/2006 @ 04:15am

18. RB, I apologise for that previous posting. It was a knee jerk reaction to the introduction of sexual innuendo in your posting but it was below the belt and I take it back.

    Posted by inveresk at 01/26/2006 @ 04:38am

19. After a good night's sleep, I suddenly realized ANOTHER point that Mr Nichols, I'm sure unconsciously, made with this line-

    "they can look forward to the day when voters in their country might choose to throw out a scandal-plagued government that goes by the name "conservative."

    So, the Canadians will throw out the Conservatives once they too become corrupt? Not when the voters DISLIKE their policies?

    Shouldn't he have said, "When the Liberals reform themselves AND when the Canadian voters see how HORRIBLE Conservative policies are."?

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 06:45am

20. Out of subject, but related to a democratic election:

    Hamas won a landslide victory in democratic elections in Palestine, Israel will not deal with them, because of terrorism, Europe will deal with them only if pacific office is ensured, the US has not yet commented clearly.

    Posted by areyouok at 01/26/2006 @ 06:55am

21. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal published on Thursday, US President George Bush said he would not deal with Hamas unless it abandoned its tough stance on Israel.

    "A political party, in order to be viable, is one that professes peace". Bush said.

    Posted by areyouok at 01/26/2006 @ 07:30am

22. Inveresk, that below the belt thing was very amusing, don't stop

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 08:31am

23. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/26/2006 @ 03:02am

    I presented three debatedable positions, including an unsubstanciated cheap shot about education, and the best I get back is 'blue norther'(?)and vague comments about morality. I perfer facts please, not quasi-intellectual platitides verging on the absurd.

    Back to the facts- "most of our blue states hug the northern border!" Correct-California doesn't, with more than 9% of the U.S. population, and an even greater slice of GDP. More correct-Most blue states have higher per capita GDP, implying a more educated population with a greater ability to think clearly.

    On morality, I live in country where the state does not execute peolpe. It's a nice fit with my Catholic belief structure and that business about the ten commandments. I think it's better to practice those priciples, rather than argue a big rock engraved with them should be placed in a courthouse.

    Posted by prokopiww at 01/26/2006 @ 09:16am

24. I believe there is another thing that distinguishes our neighbor to the north, and that's the head of state is not turned into a demi god, the celebrity to outshine all celebreties. also a strong and independent parliament, instead of the craven knaves we keep re-electing. am I right on this? please comment

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 09:27am

25. JOHANNESROLF

    I agree with you that the Canadian political system is in better shape than the one in the US, nevertheless, all around the world, politicians are "own - interest" fanatics, that is bad for democracy.

    Posted by areyouok at 01/26/2006 @ 09:40am

26. It's a waste of time discussing the dynamic of Canadian politics with people who insist on applying their schematic to a different nation and culture.

    Posted by Legba at 01/26/2006 @ 09:52am

27. LEGBA

    I agree with you, therefore I disagree with the Bush administration ideology that US democracy will work in Iraq and other countries.

    Posted by areyouok at 01/26/2006 @ 10:07am

28. I'm new to this forum but there is one thing that I think that all of the U.S. Conservative types should understand. When you are discussing right and left, you have to understand just where the centre is. For Americans to understand where the Canadian centre is, take your centre and move it several degrees to the left. There, you will find the Canadian centre. So the Canadian right is more like the U.S. centre and the Canadian left (NDP) is much farther left than you are used to. The Liberals in Canada don't know where they are anymore. They used to be to the left of centre but now, there are whereever they think is popular. They have become the party of "what-we-think-is-happening-now"

    I voted for the Conservatives in this election and actually like many of their policies. But they are more for decentralization than social conservatism. That part of the Conservative party is a small rump. Actually, the Liberals have a rump of their own in that area.

    That being said, the Liberals needed a time out to redefine themselves. I hope they take a good look in the mirror and redefine what they want to be.

    Posted by rainmaker at 01/26/2006 @ 10:12am

29. it's not so much a question of whether democracy will work in Iraq, or afghanistan for that matter, but rather whether it can be imposed at the point of a gun, as a crash program. let's remember democracy did not come to the US in 1776. it started to arrive with universal suffrage, and it's still not entirely here

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 10:14am

30. It's a waste of time discussing the dynamic of Canadian politics with people who insist on applying their schematic to a different nation and culture.

    Posted by LEGBA 01/26/2006 @ 09:52am | ignore this person

    So, then Canadians shouldn't comment on OUR political dynamics? Would that also apply to Columbians like CHIMI?

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 10:45am

31. Yo, Areyouok: no contention. I'm just saying that if the right can't even see the subtle differences between their own political system and the politics in Canada Rainmaker refers to, how in the world could they possibly see or understand a process on the other side of the world very clearly? And Johannesrolf once again lends sobriety to this discussion, attempting to break it away from the idea that democracy is something like fucking Bisquick. "Started to arrive" is right, Johannesrolf. But our rightierights here are determined to make sure it becomes stillborn.

    Posted by Legba at 01/26/2006 @ 10:49am

32. RIO BRAVO writes,

    Why would they want to return to the repressive and corrupt ideologies of modern liberalism after suffering so long (13yrs.)under such a repressive despotic or liberal tryannical rule?

    And now I issue a challenge to RIO BRAVO/BED WETTER:

    Find and point to Canada on a map; or, lacking such a new-fangled and dangerously intellectual facility as a map in your trailer, describe its location in words.

    (Teeter-teeter; BED WETTER could not accomplish this simple task in 50 lifetimes).

    Why take BED WETTER so far beyond his intellectual capacity, like a zoo animal marshalled out for liberal amusement? BED WETTER has already stained this webpage with respect to his "views" on Canada and liberalism. And to further illustrate the point: BED WETTER's stupidity is the defination of being a right-winger. To be a right-winger IS to be ignorant, to be inferior, and to know that one is inferior in one's thoughts, deeds, morality, educational status, sexual prowess, economic capacity. Hence, BED WETTER's belligerance toward the rest of the world clumsily lipsticked over in the style of a gruesome tart as a form of "pride".

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/26/2006 @ 10:59am

33. after suffering so long (13yrs.)under such a repressive despotic or liberal tryannical rule?

    this guy is just a nut case.period

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 11:08am

34. Right? This coming from people who live under a culture that glorifies the pricecoding of everything until the grave. Even preparation for death is a commodity. Talk about tyranny.

    Posted by Legba at 01/26/2006 @ 11:10am

35. thank you Legba, this mis-administration could described as the roll back administration

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 11:14am

36. PROK

    Yes, I noticed some time back the "blue-rings" around dense PPL areas and other "heathen zones" like Universities. Of course, when I mention such things - those like RB, et al, rise up from their cowtowns and trailer parks with pitchforks and torches to burn down us anti-American, commie, IslamoFascist supporting, baby-killing, Jesus-hating, homosexual, intellectual elitist bastards.

    INVER

    A big LOL on the 4:15am "Brokeback Trailer Park" inference

    ALL

    In an unrelated story, GW Bush advises world leaders, in an effort to combat avian flu, to "choke their chickens". Seems he has the same speechwriters as South park. SEE: CHICKEN [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by leftofcenter at 01/26/2006 @ 11:24am

37. RIO, I would like to congratulate you on including the words "intimate", "liberal", "proper", "organ", "sect" and "body" in a single sentence. Your writing is certainly improving. Although I think "sect" should have been pluralized.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 01/26/2006 @ 12:29pm

38. BTW, has Mr Nichols' "champion" Russ Feingold announced that he'll filibuster Alito yet?

    or just talking about how "dangerous" he is and "how he will destroy civil rights"....but Russ can't waste time filibustering THAT?

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 12:39pm

39. It's a waste of time discussing the dynamic of Canadian politics with people who insist on applying their schematic to a different nation and culture. Posted by LEGBA 01/26/2006 @ 09:52am | ignore this person

    So, then Canadians shouldn't comment on OUR political dynamics? Would that also apply to Columbians like CHIMI? Posted by MASK

    Have any Canadians insisted on applying their schematic on America? Has Chimi? Will Mask ever have a comment that doesn't tear down another blogger or muddy an otherwise coherent discussion? Seriously, you serve no purpose except to rile people up...wait a minute, you're not Todd pretending to be a conservative pretending to be a moderate, are you?

    And besides Clinton, who you have on several occasions have proclaimed your closest-to-the-mark politician, is there anybody that actually has a chance to run in '08 that you would consider supporting? Careful now, you wouldn't want to take a stand and pin yourself down, since as it stands now you can take potshots at both sides with abandon.

    Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 1:31pm

40. John Nichols is exactly right that Canadians went to the polls to reject the corruption and scandals that dominated the Martin Liberal government.

    Don't try to tell that to Bush Bootlickers though. Their narrow interpretation of the results conclude that Conservatives won big and booted out the hated Liberals with zero understanding of how the parliamentary system works to begin with. Not surprisingly and reading some of the dyed-in-wool Bush-worshippers and devotees here, they conclude that the Candadian victory for Harper gives him the same authority and endorsement they give Bush to rule as if he has a mandate.

    Of course, nothing of the sort occurred. On the contrary, Harper's government is a minority in the overall distribution of power given the fact there are at least four other parties representing the totality.

    But, if Republican blind loyalists believe the Canadian system works so well they might consider the fact that if the same vote of confidence that booted out Martin's party was implemented in the United States, Bush would have been back in Crawford, Texas cutting weeds and brush along with his sidekick, Harriet Miers (the most qualified person to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court in the country), years ago.

    We might have been able to prevent a few more thousand deaths and wounded U.S. military and Iraqi citizens and established a stable ally with Iraq instead of the incessant violence and insurgency that we have today.

    Posted by richard38 at 01/26/2006 @ 1:51pm

41. TURK

    Well, there's an easy way NOT to "rile people up"...pick a side and agree with them on every issue and "Hi-5" every attack they do. Since a predominance of the bloggers at "The Nation" "drift" Left....all I got to do is espouse the usual liberal talking points on the issues, call Bush a "dictator", and nobody gets riled up.

    2. Right now....maybe Bill Richardson. Here's a governor, who's cut taxes, and (perhaps to insulate himself for 2008) taken a tough stance on illegal immigration (he even used THAT term...not "undocumented workers"!). He's ex-Energy Sec'y, so he'll probably have a RATIONAL energy policy (not "just oil", but not "pie-in-the-sky" neo-Luddite environmentalist ones either).

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 1:54pm

42. RIO BRAVO/BED WETTER,

    I read with great interest your learned teachings that have been carefully gathered and measured with infinite wisdom before being sheparded into the sheer poetic beauty that is uniquely yours:

    Why would they want to return to the repressive and corrupt ideologies of modern liberalism after suffering so long (13yrs.)under such a repressive despotic or liberal tryannical rule?

    In the best right-wing tradition, BED WETTER presents unimpeachable insight into the grim Canadian situation of snow drifts and massive inflitration of US media (think: Peter Jennings). But please clarify a few dangling points, minor matters that could never dent your iron-clad logic and command of data:

    1-Given the "despotic" (your word) regime on the US doorstep, why has the Bush adminsitration allowed US workers to become coolies to this leftist monstrosity by toiling for the Toronto BlueJays? Have you organized your trailer park estate into commando cells to, for example, save Roy Halliday from being sacrificed to the despotic regime in Ottawa and its maniacal designs on baseball domination? Similarly for the Toronto Raptors' slave labor camp as well as a half-dozen or so NHL franchises, where the brazen despotic regime flexes its muscle. Perhaps you similarly organized the trailerpark response when the Grizzlies were liberated (commando-style raid, maybe?) from Vancover?

    2-Have you organized freedom patrols at the US border to forcefully turn-back alleged Canadian refugees and victims fleeing the "despotic" regime (but who are to be likely left-wing totalitarians set on feminizing America!)? If so, how? If not, why not? How can American stand tall when the borders with a "despotic" regime have been so pourous for so long? And what is Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Condi doing about this nascent Cuba across the St. Lawrence? Be careful, however, when you get your patrols going as to avoid being run over by the waves of Americans posing as Canadians and fleeing the private US health care disaster.

    3-Will you be organizing your trailer park estate for protests against Canadian despotism and for regime change? After all, the Cons do not have a majority in Parliment and the political culture of despotism cannot possibly be routed with one election cycle. Will you be calling your Congressperson demanding real regime change in the "Cuba with a Quebecois accent" that menaces America with its foriegn ideologies? Will you volunteer to be in the first wave into Ottawa, pulling down statues of the dreaded and slimy dictator Trudeau?

    Truly, RIO BRAVO/BED WETTER is an action intellectual, the Paul Revere of his trailer park estate, sounding the alarm against the despotic Canadien tyranny machine that is poised on continental domination and that is gaining sustenance from its allies in Havana, Beijing, and many diaper-on-the-head zones of the world...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/26/2006 @ 2:18pm

43. I wouldn't mind living in Canada if it weren't so !@#$ cold. I lived in the Northeast for 3 decades and now languish pleasantly in the Southern California very near the ocean. A bit crowded, but great weather.

    Canadians actually, as a class, can think -- unlike the Americans (again generalizing to the entire class). It's why they have no nonsensical death penalty, have a government controlled universal health plan and have polite politics. Ever watch their news shows? Instead of fear and disaster news, they have real news delivered by competent news anchors selected for their journalistic ability rather than beauty.

    Maybe I can get the California government to leave the U.S. and join Canada!!

    Posted by adr at 01/26/2006 @ 2:36pm

44. Odd, think is, ADR....

    all their talented (and near-talented) people.....move down here!

    Shatner, Jim Carrey, Neil Young, Mike Myers, Michael J. Fox, Alanis Morrisette, etc, etc, etc.?

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 2:47pm

45. ProkopIWW---I have heard this arguement before. The northern blue states have a greater GDP yada yada yada and therefore are someway superior to the Southern red states. The industrial revolution in this country was centered in the northern states. The northern states had a larger population than the south. Therefore from the very beginning of our nation the northern states had a greater GDP and a greater population. During the civil war the south was destroyed and then politically and economically punished by northern republicans---it has taken many years for the south to politically and economically recover from those two misfortunes. Today the south has to deal with illegal immigration and spend much more of its resources dealing with this problem than northern states. But the times they are change'in----the steel belt has become the rust belt----people are moving to the south in record numbers (lower taxes, lower cost of living)---so much of what you brag about, which was accomplished more by happenstance than by any inborn superiority, is slowly dissolving. The Red States of the American south are growing in political power and economic power. Northern elitism has been politically eviscerated while the slow drum beat of southern political power continues to grow.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/26/2006 @ 2:53pm

46. LEN MOSSE,

    Yes, or perhaps the south and its less-educated, lower standard-of- living environment is providing the role of the "Third World" for corporate America.

    Posted by Oustbush at 01/26/2006 @ 3:32pm

47. Posted by OUSTBUSH 01/26/2006 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person

    Can I just ask again....Where have the last THREE Democratic Presidents come from?

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 3:42pm

48. Southern political power. Oh, like the opportunity to die in unregulated coal mines, or die slowly from brown lung disease in cotton mills. Or drown in floods, or burn to death in poultry processing plants. Yeah, that's some real power, son.

    Posted by bkarloff at 01/26/2006 @ 3:49pm

49. "...all their talented (and near-talented) people.....move down here!" -- Posted by MASK 01/26/2006 @ 2:47pm

    1. Here is where the (entertainment, media, etc.) money is. 2. There are other important sorts of talent. 3. Who says that these represent all of the talent. 4. It's !@#$% cold up there.

    Besides, I'd take exception to including Shatner as "talented."

    Posted by adr at 01/26/2006 @ 4:29pm

50. BKARLOFF

    More Southern bashing? No party can win without it. Last 3 Democratic Presidents?

    Clinton=Arkansas

    Carter=Georgia

    LBJ=Texas

    JFK? if he wouldn't have had LBJ on his ticket...he loses

    So verbally bash the South if you must, but you will ultimately have to bow down and kiss her ass a little, IF you want to win the Presidency

    Posted by CPT at 01/26/2006 @ 4:43pm

51. "Can I just ask again....Where have the last THREE Democratic Presidents come from?" -- Posted by MASK 01/26/2006 @ 3:42pm

    I think it's great that the South has produced not only several presidents, but also many other people of great intellectual prowess.

    Presidents --

    FDR -- New York Truman -- Missouri (not elected first time) Eisenhower -- Kansas (although born in Texas -- mostly a general, though) Kennedy -- Massachusetts LBJ -- Texas but chosen by JFK, not elected Nixon -- California (where's that?) Ford -- Michigan (born in Nebraska) (would have been Agnew, but for pesky corruption)(chosen by Nixon for willingness to pardon or some such) Carter -- Georgia (great man, but not such a great president) Reagan -- California (the strange place again -- not North, not South) Bush I -- Massachusetts (lots of presidents from there) Clinton -- Arkansas (pretty good politician, but not so good at personal morals) Bush II -- Texas (born in Connecticut)(arguably dimmest bulb in this list)

    The above proves nothing about presidential origins.

    Posted by adr at 01/26/2006 @ 4:46pm

52. Bigger fish to fry, boys and girls....

    word spreading....Kerry's going to filibuster Alito....more later if true!

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 4:59pm

53. MASK

    That is not a SERIOUS attempt by Kerry to filibuster Alito, though i hope he trys, its about making himself look appealing to the base.

    He wants another chance to run, especially since that Gallup poll on Hillary's chances at a serious run at the Presidency shows only a solid 16% back her and a solid 51% do NOT.

    Kerry is smelling an opprotunity to appeal to the DEMs.

    Posted by CPT at 01/26/2006 @ 5:22pm

54. CPT check this out

    "A year from now, the combination of fewer than needed recruits and fewer than needed reenlistments in the junior grades could result in a significant "hollowing" and imbalance in the Army, both active and reserve. Based on DoD's monthly manpower report by grade, the Army already has a deficit of some 18,000 personnel in its junior enlisted grades (E1-E4). Even if it meets its recruiting and retention goals, the Army is projected to be short some 30,000 soldiers (not including stop loss) by the end of FY2006."

    So get of your fat lazy ass a go do your job, loser.

    Posted by butterfly at 01/26/2006 @ 7:11pm

55. Mr. Nicols,

    "The Canadian election was held early because the Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Paul Martin had been rocked by a major corruption scandal, which involved the misuse of public funds to promote the government's position on issues involving the relationship between the province of Quebec and rest of the country."

    O.K. let me clarify my understanding here, your major premise is that conservatives should not get their hopes up because a conservative group won an election in Canada, and you are making this argument based on the fact that the election was held early due to a major corruption scandal………

    And exactly what party was in power that allowed this scandal to occur?

    Oh a liberal party….

    Right……

    You have a sound argument there Mr. Nicols, I'm sure buying it!

    You put what ever spin on it you want Mr. Nicols, your favored party lost, and a conservative group won, and that just chaps your rear end doesn't it?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/26/2006 @ 7:17pm

56. From OKSUCKGUY

    And exactly what party was in power that allowed this scandal to occur?

    Oh a liberal party….

    Right

    What party is envolved with all the scandals in Washington, oh, the conservative party. Just like in Canada, we will remove the corrupt party

    Posted by butterfly at 01/26/2006 @ 7:25pm

57. Once again, the non-sequiturs fly from the keyboard of OSS.

    OSS plays the label game. The names don't match, Guy!

    Posted by adr at 01/26/2006 @ 7:45pm

58. Actually, the NDP voted non-confidence in the Paul Martin Liberal minority gov't because Mr. Martin refused to support a motion which committed the Federal government to stopping any further privatization of universal Medicare by the provinces. The NDP was prepared to wait for Martin to fulfill his promise to call an election after all Gomery information and results were available had been debated in the House, projected to be likely Spring 2006.

    Even though universal public single-tier Medicare is the strongest issue with Canadians, the Liberals were (and are) just as prepared as the Conservatives to knuckle under to NAFTA/US-corporate pressure to continue bringing US rip-off style health care to Canada.

    Also bear in mind that Harper has a smaller minority than Martin did. Canadians living in cities recognized the Conservative mobilization of their religious right base (mainly Western, rural) and voted to prevent them from having a 5-year dictatorship. The Conservative minority is as much a result of Canadians watching the Bush administration/Republican abuse of power as it is showing a distaste for Harper's hard right ideologies.

    Harper is now trying to distance himself from Bush by making a big deal over Softwood Lumber and Canadian sovereignty in the North. Maybe that was what Bush and Harper discussed in their phone call...

    Stephen: "This minority isn't good enough for either of us, so how about we shadowbox on issues that can't be resolved to make me look good for the next election."

    George: "Uh sure, just so long as we keep control of your oil and get greater access to your health care system... You know where I stand on oil, and Rummy's making a ton of money on Tamiflu."

    Posted by NOYB at 01/26/2006 @ 8:09pm

59. Can I just ask again....Where have the last THREE Democratic Presidents come from?

    Posted by MASK 01/26/2006 @ 3:42pm | ignore this person

    Mask,

    Still doesn't change the depressing poverty of the south, and the fact that the big attraction for industries happens to be cheap labor and state-sponsored hostility towards unions. I would not feel comfortable modeling these areas as socio-economic success stories. Take away Florida, which thrives as a gaudy, transient tourist trap (what kind of cultural history-significance does it have?)and Virginia (where I live) which feeds heavily and greedily at the government pork-bin (not exactly free market doctrine, is it?), and you don't have much to brag about. The southwest is only marginally conservative, by the way. I believe New Mexico even voted with Kerry. Yes, the south has been granted disproportionate power from day one, as they displayed pre-Civil War era. Again, not something to be happy with. Go ahead, promote your race to the bottom.

    Posted by Oustbush at 01/26/2006 @ 10:02pm

60. How do you rate a dictator if you're an American citizen who has always believed up until now that our nation's leaders are accountable to the people?

    Here is a brief summary of the Bush/Cheney dictatorship:

    1. Lying about W.M.D. and preemptively bombing another country, putting over 2,238 U.S. military in bodybags. wounding over 16,000 and putting tens of thousands ("30,000 more or less") Iraqi citizens in their graves;

    2. violation of Geneva Convention Accords, calling them "quaint and obsolete;"

    3. torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners;

    4. perceived authority to arrest citizens whether U.S. or foreign and holding them without charges or access to legal counsel or U.S. courts;

    5. jeopardizing national security by traitorously blowing the cover of a CIA agent's identity, sitting on that knowledge of the White House operatives who leaked Valerie Plame's name for over two years and saying nothing;

    6. spying on American citizens without warrants and violating the legal requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA);

    7. failure to release photographs showing Bush together with Jack Abramoff, Republican lobbyist operative and admitted felon;

    8. failure to answer congressional inquiries about the Katrina disaster by withholding e-mails and documents which prove the Bush administration knew well in advance the dangers of the levees collapsing in New Orleans;

    9. deliberate and methodical evisceration by under funding and under staffing all safety and health agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which were established to protect the American people;

    10. Trashing of all major legitimate science programs and research which the Bush theocracy-leaning crony scientists refer to as "junk science" substituting their own rigid faith-based versions.

    We clearly know what the Bush/Cheney doctrine is when they spit in the face of the laws of our land and hold the American people and the United States Constitution in utter contempt. The Bush/Cheney Doctrine: "GFY."

    Posted by richard38 at 01/26/2006 @ 10:09pm

61. AGAIN,

    Bob Beckel, Mondale suspenders, just backed bombing Iran...

    Posted by john maasch at 01/26/2006 @ 10:21pm

62. RICHARD

    Believe it or not...words STILL matter.

    Please cite the number of "dictators" in history, who allow for a re-election campaign where the opponent can come within 200,000 votes in one state of winning it electorally....much less campaign AT ALL....much less not be arrested for even TRYING to campaign...much less be arrested before he even THINKS about campaigning.

    Bush is not a "dictator"....look the word up, for goodness sakes!

    Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 10:23pm

63. You know you guys are too easy---all conservatives need to do is poke at you just a little and you take the democratic party screaming over the left abyss. Just a little proding and you alienate an entire region of the country---it's just too easy.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/26/2006 @ 10:28pm

64. Just a little proding and you alienate an entire region of the country---it's just too easy.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/26/2006 @ 10:28pm

    Alienate?

    I was thinking more in terms of turning it into a pariah.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/26/2006 @ 11:32pm

65. It is true that Canada elected a Conservative government. But understand that it's not an American-style conservative government. As much as he may want to be seen as Bush Lite, Stephen Harper is on a very short leash. He does not have a mandate to turn Canada into a pale imitation of Bush's America and he knows it.

    He'll have to tread carefully if he wants to stay in power. If he produces good legislation that other parties can support, it will likely be adopted. But he is fully aware that he can be knocked off his high horse very easily. I expect his government to last 2 years give or take 6 months. The time will allow the Liberals to clean their act.

    Historically, the Conservatives are not squeaky clean. They've had their share of scandals and corruption from as far back as I can remember. By the end of their time in power, Brian Mulroney's Conservatives suffered from repeated scandals and were unceremoneuosly turfed from office by the Chretien liberals in 1993. They lost so many seats, the party was so fractured and they were not allowed a sniff at any semblance of power until now.

    The political terms "Left" and "Right" are not viewed the same in our two countries. I would describe the relative positions of Canadian and US political parties as follows. Assume a one-foot ruler. You'll find: at one inch (the very far left) a few disorganized Marxists, Leninsts and Communists. at four inches - Canada's NDP party at six inches - Canada's Liberal party at nine inches - Canada's Conservative party at eleven inches near the far right, your Democratic party Your Republican party is off the scale.

    Re the allegation that Canada was run into the ground, consider that when GWB was anointed President of the US the Canadian Dollar traded at about 67 cents US. Now our dollar is at 87 cents or so and continuing its gradual climb. It results from a combination of our strengthening economy and good fiscal management and your accelerating deficits. Note that all the money involved in all the Canadian scandals is a small fraction of our annual budget surpluses.

    As for it being cold in Canada, I live about 500 miles north of the 49th where the average daytime high for this January is above zero. That's a far cry from March 1992 when the overnight temp fell to -35 celsius (31 below zero on your scale) while I was on a winter camping trip with a bunch of Boy Scouts. 1992 was normal. 2006 is not. If the warming trend continues, we might have to consider planting palm trees and cacti.

    Talents? William Shatner, Jim Carrey? This is another area where our definitions differ. There are talented Canadians in the US. We are bringing some of them back. Soon to be former Harvard prof Michael Ignatieff was elected as a Liberal Member of Parliament. He'll probably take a shot at leadership of the Liberal party. Frank McKenna submitted his resignation as Ambassador to Washington yesterday and will likely take a shot at leadership too.

    I see occasional references to Adam Smith's economic theories in other blogs. Economics were only one part of his philosophy. Adam Smith also said, "The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest." - The Theory of Modern Sentiments. republished in 1984. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

    I'm afraid that I'm starting to ramble. Kudos to the Nation and the bloggers on these pages for giving me some insight into your country's political debate. Now, it's back to reading for me. Don't be misled by the moniker. I am Canadian (of 100% Acadian ancestry.)

    Posted by cajunbob at 01/27/2006 @ 12:08am

66. Oustbush,

    "Yes, the south has been granted disproportionate power from day one, as they displayed pre-Civil War era. Again, not something to be happy with. Go ahead, promote your race to the bottom."

    We certainly will, don't worry. We have no plans of giving control back over to liberals.

    Hey what do you think about Alito's upcoming appointment to SCOTUS while we are on the subject?

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/27/2006 @ 06:49am

67. Speaking of the South, is it any wonder that the worse the state education system, the redder the state votes? Hmmm... I think I sense a correlation...

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/27/2006 @ 07:58am

68. Jorcheim, Jorcheim

    "Speaking of the South, is it any wonder that the worse the state education system, the redder the state votes? Hmmm... I think I sense a correlation..."

    Possibly, however I would suggest that it is probably be due to the higher percentage of kids in private Christian schools in the states with poor education systems. Lord knows I wouldn't want my children learning the secularists value system and hence why my children are in private schools.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/27/2006 @ 08:10am

69. Some people are easily brainwashed. Indeed, barely perceptible drizzle or even the random mewling from Rush's ugly puss will suffice. RIO BRAVO/BED WETTER, for example,intones :

    The Demoncrats are on the way out, or maybe just 40 of the 45 "D's" in the senate deeply involved in the Abramoff scandel!

    Name names, BED WETTER, about 40 of them. And you will need to explain "deeply involved" as well: substantively what it means, how in particular this involvement excedes GOP implicatuiion.

    Looking forward to new belly laughs minted by the hopless clown who only yesterday characterized Canada as (tetter, teeter, guffaw) a "tyranny" and "despotic" state: B-R-A-I-N-W-A-S-H-E-D. It gets difficult to keep a straight face long enough to prompt some of these pathetic losers in the game of life, but I enjoy watching conservaClowns careen through their ass-backward mental lunges ...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 08:29am

70. GLENNC.LEMON:

    While I disagree with those on this blog who are on the "conservative" side of the debate, it is no more appropriate for you to make ad hominem attacks or disparaging comments on them as people any more than it is for them to do so to us. Keep it on the issues please.

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/27/2006 @ 08:34am

71. OKSPORTSGUY writes,

    I would suggest that it is probably be due to the higher percentage of kids in private Christian schools in the states with poor education systems.

    "Would suggest", my ass. Let's see some data. I dare to you demonstrate that there are more kids enrolled in religious schools in Mobile or OK City than in Chicago or Boston (that is, places with deeply inscribed traditions of education and literacy).

    Lord knows I wouldn't want my children learning the secularists value system and hence why my children are in private schools.

    Good thinking, Todd, one would not want to live under secular, liberal law when faced with the glory and social possibilities presented by sharia law or its other right-wing fundementalist variations. And is it safe to assume that your children are being indoctrinated into assuming that evolution is something other than a proven fact (in contrast with a Jesuit education that is not weded to medieval superstition)? Verily, this is the preparation your hostages/children will need for the 21st century, to advance themselves and the US economy. Heartening to know that you are bulldozing closed their possibilities at such a precocious age, but you would not want your children to excede your distinctly limited horizons. It's the rightwing way ...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 08:40am

72. OKSPORTSGUY:

    You said:

    Possibly, however I would suggest that it is probably be due to the higher percentage of kids in private Christian schools in the states with poor education systems. Lord knows I wouldn't want my children learning the secularists value system and hence why my children are in private schools.

    My response:

    Or perhaps it could have something to do with the fact that teachers are paid a pittance compared to those in the north, hence the northern states get the better teachers. It could also have something to do with social spending, since it has long been understood that the higher the living standards of the lowest among us, the better the results of education.

    I also find it rather interesting that you hold such disdain for secularism, considering practically everything in your life is a product of that same secularism. Whether it is your suv (the internal combustion engine, i.e. that "evil" secular science of physics) or our beloved Constitution (the product of the secular humanist movement embodied by the Enlightenment movement throughout Europe), your life and those things which allow you to lead it in the way you wish is due to secularism.

    While I personally am Christian, I thank God we live in a secular nation. I have no desire to force my views or morality upon others. Surely, there are certain basic laws that we should all abide... the most important being "Love your neighbor as yourself". Somehow, I don't sense a lot of neighborly love in most of your posts.

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/27/2006 @ 08:44am

73. Wonder how Mr Nichols' feels about John Kerry being the leader on an Alito filibuster....and not his pal Russ Feingold?

    Kerry's move is very smart. Even if he fails, which he probably will, given that Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have already said they would NOT support a filibuster, Kerry wins the hearts of the liberal base....and that's VITAL for any "second try" in 2008.

    He puts Hillary, Bayh, Biden, AND Feingold on the defensive, when they are asked in Iowa and New Hampshire "Why didn't YOU push for filibuster, Senator...like John Kerry did?"

    John Kerry COULD BE the 2008 nominee, now!

    Posted by Mask at 01/27/2006 @ 08:48am

74. JORCHEIM wrties,

    While I disagree with those on this blog who are on the "conservative" side of the debate, it is no more appropriate for you to make ad hominem attacks or disparaging comments on them as people any more than it is for them to do so to us.

    I have found your contributions to be consistently intelligent but I have to respectfully disagree with your judgement here. I reserve the right to be forceful and even abusive; we know they can dish it out, but they certainly cannot take it. With regard to the approach that I have taken, no apology is necessary and none is offered.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 08:53am

75. Who cares who the 2008 Presidential candidate is? I certainly don't. The more salient question is, when are the progressives in this country going to wake up and realize that the Democrats have nothing we need? Until the Democrats stop being whores for corporate capital, and get a platform that is something considerably more populist than "Republican Lite", they will continue to lose elections. The only way to fight corporate dominance of the electoral system is to generate massive grassroots support and change the rules which allow money to have such a determinant effect on the politics in this country. Any other discussions about who will run, who won't run, etc. are like pissing in the wind. Sure, it's fun to watch, but it's ultimately a messy and fruitless process.

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/27/2006 @ 08:54am

76. GLENNC.LEMON:

    See, that is precisely what they want. By getting you to react emotionally to their claptrap and monotonous partisan tripe, they get you off the point at hand. You know they are wrong. I know they are wrong. So show them without being personally insulting. I know it's difficult.

    I am not saying you need to apologize. I am not saying you can't be forceful. I am known for the occasional rant myself. But the real task at hand is to chop them down at the knees. They only understand force. And the force of a solid, well-fleshed out argument is considerably more powerful than some emotional hissyfit.

    Thank you for the compliment, by the way. Much appreciated.

    Posted by jorcheim at 01/27/2006 @ 08:58am

77. JORCHEIM,

    Thanks for taking the time for thoughtfully responding.

    I have indeed taken some different approaches with some different posters. The plainly well-mannered MASK can be argued with (although he always hauls ass into his "hypocrisy!" cul-de-sac), CPT & TENNILE can be argued with to be some limited extent as well. But I am honestly not interested in trying to teach and uplift, say, AYATOLLAH AL-LIBERTI or BED WETTER when they are having a tawdry brawl with the 21st century and its contours of reality. I do not aspire to patiently explain reality to someone who posits that --- get this --- Canada is a despotic tyranny, since it strikes me as a pointless form of masochistic performance art to entertain that attempt at "conversation". Ridicule and mockery may, paradoxically, even be more "educational" when such absurd doctrines are thrown scornfully back into the perps' faces because it is a more truthful response to their ghastly submission to a false and totalizing dogma.

    I hope this explains the logic and I shall assay to raise the info-to-insult ratio for the likes of yourself, but that is more of a tactical than a strategic shift.

    Best Regards, G.C.L.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 09:21am

78. Glen,

    "Verily, this is the preparation your hostages/children will need for the 21st century, to advance themselves and the US economy. Heartening to know that you are bulldozing closed their possibilities at such a precocious age, but you would not want your children to excede your distinctly limited horizons."....

    Many feel that the public education system prepares our kids for nothing in the 21st century, or the 19th, or even the 18th. And judging what they teach about the US economy, I have to surmise the teachers themselves do not understand the fundementals of free enterprise.

    I am not for teaching creationism in school as a subject, just that it is another view point. I will teach my kids religion at home and church. It is also true that evolution is a theory...I think a blend of the 2 is closer to the truth.

    Many feel as I do that the public schools indoctrinate rather than teach, which puts them on par with the "church".

    My children have attended both christian and public. Depends on where you live as to which may be better. On the whole the private were better at fundementals where the public has had to become baby sitters and day care providers, which has them doing the job parents should be doing. It is very difficult for teachers today, in my opinion. Don't blame the Todd who want something different.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/27/2006 @ 09:39am

79. JOR,

    "While I personally am Christian, I thank God we live in a secular nation. I have no desire to force my views or morality upon others. Surely, there are certain basic laws that we should all abide... the most important being "Love your neighbor as yourself".

    I couldn't agree more. This is the Nazarenes last commandment..

    Posted by john maasch at 01/27/2006 @ 09:43am

80. GLENN

    "The plainly well-mannered MASK can be argued with (although he always hauls ass into his "hypocrisy!" cul-de-sac)"?

    Not really sure of how pointing out hypocrisy is a "dead end"?

    If I'm being lectured to on "alternative energy" by somebody driving around in a limo, flying private jets, and fighting against a wind farm because it ruins the view from their beachfront home...it KINDA makes a difference in whether I'll take them seriously or not.

    Posted by Mask at 01/27/2006 @ 09:50am

81. TO judge from JOHN MAASCH's comments, "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme".

    When prototype rightwing nut William F. Buckley crapped out his first book, a charade of reason entitled GOD AND MAN AT YAlE, he claimed not that Yale (etc) were engaing in indoctrination AND that this is in principle for ill; but that education was not indoctrinating enough, at least where western supremacy and "free-market" capitalism is concerned. So it is with JOHN MAASCH or whatever his name is. The concern that MAASCH harbors is not about indoctrination, so much as a failure to correctly indoctrinate. To wit, in the style of a touchy-feely postmodern anti-realist, MAASCH tries to pawn off the puppyshit view that ID and evolution are equivalent as theories and entitled to equal status in the classroom. That is, he would place a distinctly religious belief that some religionists are assaying to ram down school children's throats during the time that they are obligated to be in science class, with proven science that continues to inform investigations of viruses and bacteria. The matter has already been adjudicated by Jutsice Jones in the PA case and by the SCOTUS in the 1980s, hence triggering the formulation of ID as crypto-creationism. So, it is not a matter of, "Golly Gee, all views are equal if you believe in them enough": Rather, some paradigms have huge and solid rafts of evidence in their support, other beliefs have no such evidential basis but are being pushed (presumably as Trojan horse to breach the firewalls between church and State, or simply to lift conservaClowns' always sagging self-esteem).

    For all the touchy-feely PostModern trappings, MAASCH aligns himself with anti-realist stabs at indoctrination, understood here as deliberate attempts to confuse dogma and fact in the classroom. No surprise for the True Belivers who posit Canada is a dictatorship, Bush's VanityWar is something other than the nation's worst ever strategic disaster, Abramoff was a Deomcratic tool, the corporate media is a liberal monolith, among other dreary species of ideologically-driven fantasy.

    And judging what they teach about the US economy, I have to surmise the teachers themselves do not understand the fundementals of free enterprise.

    Pffffff. Ooooo-Kay. I dare JOHN MAASCH to point out just where all of these resolutely socialist instructors are as they busily ply their market-destructive trade in the public schools. Colege campuses, we shall notice, are also vigorously supressing capitalism with their ubiqitous business schools and other forms of professional training that are focused like a laser beam on the constitution of a dictatorship of the prolitarian. MAASCH will be unable to meet this dare because, again: What he will tell us is, in effect, that the schools have not been INDOCTRINATING ENOUGH, to his specifications ...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 10:21am

82. Oh Oh, MASK, I'm hearing that MANCHURIAN accent in your thinking again:

    If I'm being lectured to on "alternative energy" by somebody driving around in a limo, flying private jets, and fighting against a wind farm because it ruins the view from their beachfront home...it KINDA makes a difference in whether I'll take them seriously or not.

    Here, we find another in along series of (1) straw-man thought experiments that also (2) shrinks away from the substance of the issue. More generally, yes you do regularly haul ass into an argumentative cul-de-sac. One of your favorites is to posit the strange menage-a-trois among John Nichols-Russell Feingold-John Roberts as a means of forcing a claim of hypocrisy into the argument. Another favored cul-de-sca is to judge what John Conyers says by ... the room in which it is said. Upgrade, please ...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 10:28am

83. good stuff Glenn. Jorchy, the main spouters of vitriol here are the Tories. sometimes it gets so wearing that, that we retaliate in kind. deplorable? eh nah, jet 'em have it

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 10:45am

84. Glenn,

    "Good thinking, Todd, one would not want to live under secular, liberal law when faced with the glory and social possibilities presented by sharia law or its other right-wing fundementalist variations. And is it safe to assume that your children are being indoctrinated into assuming that evolution is something other than a proven fact (in contrast with a Jesuit education that is not weded to medieval superstition)? Verily, this is the preparation your hostages/children will need for the 21st century, to advance themselves and the US economy. Heartening to know that you are bulldozing closed their possibilities at such a precocious age, but you would not want your children to excede your distinctly limited horizons. It's the rightwing way ..."

    It's obvious you disagree with me Glenn. That's fine, raise your children how ever you feel is best, but don't you dare protest to know what's best for my children. You're assumption that you should determine my children's value system while shouting insults at conservatives for enacting laws that protect marriage because we think our ways are better than yours is extremely hypocritical.

    I'll raise my children the way God is leading me, thank you very much.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/27/2006 @ 11:05am

85. Jorcheim,

    " I have no desire to force my views or morality upon others. "

    Good for you, I don't want "my" personal views forced on anyone either. I want to enforce God's laws, not yours or mine.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/27/2006 @ 11:07am

86. Glenn,

    "I have found your contributions to be consistently intelligent but I have to respectfully disagree with your judgement here. I reserve the right to be forceful and even abusive; we know they can dish it out, but they certainly cannot take it. With regard to the approach that I have taken, no apology is necessary and none is offered. "

    Glenn, your bias is showing through as you are throwing softballs and apologetic to Jorcheim (a liberal) while insulting me (a conservative).

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/27/2006 @ 11:09am

87. all their talented (and near-talented) people.....move down here!

    Shatner, Jim Carrey, Neil Young, Mike Myers, Michael J. Fox, Alanis Morrisette, etc, etc, etc.?

    Posted by MASK 01/26/2006 @ 2:47pm | ignore this person

    hey - its cold up there, man. they can't all live on queen victoria island, you know...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/27/2006 @ 11:14am

88. Well, this won't happen often...

    John Nichols is 100% on the money with his perspective on the conservative victory in Canada. Having lived in the Great White North for years, it's refreshing to come across an American perspective -- albeit very liberal -- that understands Canada's basic political culture.

    Quebec, Ontario, B.C., and the maritime provinces are firmly entrenched in the liberal camp. Canada's love affair with massive government will never, ever end. What passes for conservatism in Canada would slip under the radar at any poetry reading in the East Village. Simply put, there is no Canadian equivalent of American-style conservatism.

    The Liberals have been hogging the benches for so long that it took a major scandal to unseat them. And frankly, so long as the conservatives are dependent upon a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois (they're socialists with a big dash of ethnocentrism), the Canadian Conservative movement will be limited to the odd tax cut and perhaps a CNN soundbite about our "improving relations".

    The only good news, at least from my own conservative perspective, is that the conservatives somehow managed to get seats in Quebec, an absurd "nation of the mind" where common sense is about as rare as good taste.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 01/27/2006 @ 11:20am

89. Just wanted to add a brief defense of the South, the place I have called home for my adult years. I cannot throw a crucifix without hitting a churchgoin' certified conservative Republican in my town. I live and work among them. And they are fine people.

    There is still an astonishing amount of provincialism here, and it is quite a deliberate move on their part. The town and its surrounding area are growing by leaps and bounds, yet the town leaders are doing their darnedest to maintain the spirit of Mayberry RFD even as we approach 100,000 in population. But the advantage to that is a kindness to each other even as it views the outside world with squinty eyes and a furrowed brow. And the kindness for those in this community exists from top to bottom, doing so in a way that amazes me. The richest here maintain a folksy charm to all and demonstrate a connection to the greater community. And I find that race does not play much of a role in this. Clearly, the black and Hispanic citizens are less well-off than the white citizens. But the town puts economics over other social considerations. And so the town has prospered.

    It's an irritating fact that all politicians in this area are Republican, regardless of race. When issues of national import are discussed, it can be a dreary scene. But on the local level, I don't think you're going to find a significant difference in race relations when comparing southern towns and towns throughout the rest of the country. There are poor, poorly educated, hateful white people here, just as there are in California and Vermont. I correct my Maryland born/bred/permanently residing parents on their racist opinions virtually every time I see them.

    I firmly believe that within a few decades, as the southern states' populations grow and diversify, we will see less of an absolute geographical structure in red and blue states than currently exists. Until that happens, non-Republican politicians seeking national office just need to stick to a positive vision for the future that recognizes that the irrational among us are not those who work to ensure that our workers and all citizens are able to live with financial, medical, and physical security but those who put all their faith and marbles into a free market system that is not designed to address any of these issues.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/27/2006 @ 11:20am

90. Ibble,

    Also, the tax rates up there will kill them...they have made alot of money and probably want to keep more of it..do you think?...naw.........

    Posted by john maasch at 01/27/2006 @ 11:34am

91. Glen,

    You must be a teacher or professor of sort in a university(80% liberal by polls, is that "fair or balanced?", oh, yeah, who cares), as the last lecture soundly put me to sleep.

    Building wealth is what should be taught as opposed to moralizing. We live in a society where everything is and should be OK, unless you are a conservative or disagree.

    Your description of Bill Buckley exposes you and you "doctine'. Thank you, padre Glen.

    I am gone and not to return here.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/27/2006 @ 11:39am

92. Maasch, can this be true? does this mean I don't get my dinner? the Nation trembles

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 11:47am

93. TODD scolded me as follows!

    Glenn, your bias is showing through as you are throwing softballs and apologetic to Jorcheim (a liberal) while insulting me (a conservative).

    Horrifying! My cover blown in the style of Valerie Plame! Y'know, I was trying to keep my committments a secret via the use of code words and surreptious messages in invisible ink. Somehow, you were able to decode it!!! Gotta' come up with some new camoflauge so I can pretend to be Dan Ratheresque, in a charade of objectivity rituals.

    As for being insulting ... well, well, well. You have been leading with your chin, have you not, by bombastically appearing on this particular webpage and often going far out of your way to introduce yourself with blunt attacks on gay people (and while most everyone here is "straight", support for gays is very strong among the NATION core)? And then playing the "it is not r-e-a-l-l-y me speaking, but simply god almighty's revelation that is enunciated through me, his mere vessel and medium" card? Or has that been some other TODD/OKSPORTSGUY? In light of your statements, do you expect ... flowers and sweets? Blown kisses (from the little ladies, that is, who don't know that you are hitched)? 21 gun salutes, red carpets rolled out on cue .... ?!?!?!

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 11:49am

94. JR,

    Yes, you do get your dinner..:) with pleasure.

    In Omaha this week end there seems to be some kind of ale fest and I am going to chrck it out.

    I will return here to let you know when I am coming to NY and we can get together for some spirits and fleisch....or is it fleish...on me of course and th4e evil corporation I work with there....:)

    Posted by john maasch at 01/27/2006 @ 11:51am

95. MAASCH whines,

    I am gone and not to return here.

    Mission Accomplished. Feels much cleaner in the neigbhorhood, with much less hot air to perturb the good citizens.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 11:52am

96. The Nation couldn't care less about me, one more liberteatian, who disappears from the pages........

    Posted by john maasch at 01/27/2006 @ 11:52am

97. Maasch, there is no sh in german, it's always sch.

    I realize I promised to ignore you, but what I meant was that I could not go on having the same argument over again, but that's just the way it goes sometime. prehaps you'll change your mind too, the action is just too sweet around here. warning, there may be some irony in this or my other posts

    Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 12:05pm

98. Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 01/27/2006 @ 10:28am |

    No straw man in my example...that was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I was talking about.

    as to Nichols-Feingold-Roberts....Mr Nichols is the one making the "hero" of Sen. Feingold, and I merely ask WHY?

    as to Rep. Conyers, if the House and Senate Democratic Leadership don't take him seriously....why should I?

    Posted by Mask at 01/27/2006 @ 12:06pm

99. Glen,

    "And then playing the "it is not r-e-a-l-l-y me speaking, but simply god almighty's revelation that is enunciated through me, his mere vessel and medium"

    Yes exactly, didn't you already know that?

    I don't make God's laws bro..

    He does.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/27/2006 @ 12:09pm

100. JR,

     :-)

     Posted by john maasch at 01/27/2006 @ 12:17pm

101. (Groan). There's more from MAASCH:

     The Nation couldn't care less about me, one more liberteatian, who disappears from the pages........

     I can see this "passing away" is going to take awhile, with sobby speeches from the proverbial death bed, going on long after the alleged stiff's intellectual flat-lining has become chronic and irreversible.

     Another (albeit far less consequential) instance of declaring "Mission Accomplished" before the fact. I would ask why we should mourn the slipping away of a "liberteatian" (one who eats liberty?) but you know where that may lead ...

     Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 12:24pm

102. John Nichols has it right folks. His understanding of what really happened in the election here is pretty much right on the money. Canadians clearly wanted to punish the liberal party and have done so. This is not a seismic shift to the right as so many observers seem to think. I don' agree with Stephan Harper's platform at all but at the same time am not really worried that our country is about to become the US there just isn't the public support for it. Whoever posted earlier that our Right is America's centre was about right. Our society and politics are not as black and white as in the US. To try and understand it in context of American politics is to misunderstand it completely.

     Posted by donb at 01/27/2006 @ 12:34pm

103. MASK writes,

     No straw man in my example...that was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I was talking about.

     I may have missed what the reference was in an earlier discussion, in that case. Moreover, I do not know how RFK, Jr. propels himself about, or in what form of domicile he lives. I do know that he wrote a book on environmentalism, parts of which I have read: So, from what you can gather, is what Kennedy claims about the environment and media coverage wrong? In need of revision? Or what? Surely, you have some idea about this since the environment has been a high-profile issue for, oh, 35 years.

     Again, MASK, substance, not detours to spin about dizzyingly in the cul-de-sac.

     As for the Nichols-Feingold-Roberts/Alito menage-a-trois that you have often referred to, with a "Feingold is betraying Nichols, but Nicols still takes him as his trick!" storyline: In one of the most recent editorials, Mr. Nichols very clearly presents his view of what he understands to be Senator Feingold's reasoning on judicial nominees. Did you read it?

     And, as for John Conyers and the party leadership, you already know the answer to this: Rep. Conyers is simply more bold and brave than they are. As we all know, there are instances when the relatively lonely position becomes (in some perfect storm conditions) the one that eventually prevails. And then, people further up the institutional foodchain finally get on board when it's deemed "safe" ...

     Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 12:41pm

104. I think it's amusing when the Tories harp upon the personal wealth of liberals

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 12:56pm

105. TODD writes,

     Yes exactly, didn't you already know that?

     OK, OKSPORTSGUY, you lost me there. Let me explain.

     From what I can gather, you appear to be a "nice guy", the very rough edges notwithstanding. And with regard to your earlier comments, no one questions your leading role in the upbringing of your children, provided it is done within the letter of the law, as no one has reason to doubt that you are fulfilling (in contrast with MARYBRETBRAD, about whom one wonders).

     But in playing the "god card" in the first and last instance, you suck all the oxygen out of a debate: I cannot argue with a guy who takes what he is saying as simply ventriloquizing god and not mainly as an expression of his own agency and experience. I argue with other people, on a hopefully equal footing, and not with god's agents. To put it another way (as you are a sports fan) in watching the Super Bowl, I see human drama --- human strengths and failings in a public forum --- played out toward an outcome that is a function of these efforts, with the vagaries of chance also in play. I do not see god's will at work in the process or in the outcome, even while granting that the experience (for player and spectator) may "come to them" in part through a spiritual prism.

     But I don't submit to argument with someone who claims that he or she is channelling god, since to make that concession is to fix the endgame of the argument. Period. I trust you see the logic. Indeed, you may well encounter people everyday who have the very same idea and act toward you accordingly ...

     Best Regards, G.L.C.

     Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 01/27/2006 @ 1:00pm

106. Todd,

     Lemme get this straight. You don't want to force your views on others? You just want us to follow gods laws?

     What's the difference? Your god, your views.

     On the other hand maybe you are right about gods laws trumping Americas. Yes...you're right, I'm wrong,. Praise Allah! We should definately be ruled by gods laws.

     I think I'll buy a bunch of copies of the koran. Some for my legislators and some for the school board. What a great point of view you have.

     My eyes are open now.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/27/2006 @ 1:19pm

107. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/26/2006 @ 2:53pm

     "I have heard this arguement before. The northern blue states have a greater GDP yada yada yada and therefore are someway superior to the Southern red states.

     "...people are moving to the south in record numbers (lower taxes, lower cost of living)---so much of what you brag about, which was accomplished more by happenstance than by any inborn superiority, is slowly dissolving."

     I must admit I have not considered this migration before, but it could be a good thing. When the blue voters all move south, so do their votes. No more red states perhaps?

     Posted by prokopiww at 01/27/2006 @ 6:39pm

108. What? Days of rambling on about Canada and talent, without any mention of Neil Peart, Geddy Lee or Alex Lifeson?

     William shatner? WTF? I suspect, if we check into it, he was sent away.

     I knew dead threads were goog for something. I feel better now.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/27/2006 @ 9:42pm

109. the southern states busted the unions, by being "right to work" states. they attracted many jobs from the northeast and elsewhere where unions were strong, and workers had it better, the population followed the jobs. now those manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas and the shoe is on the other foot

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/28/2006 @ 12:46am