Comments: Senate votes to ban Canadian cattle

"Japan wants the origin of the beef indicated on the labels. We said no."

When you say "we" do you mean the US or Canada?

If it was Canada, I don't know how they'd enforce no labels unless it was to say "we won't sell you any beef then".

If it was the US, I can't imagine why we'd do that. If it was determined to be safe, just leave Canadian beef for the domestic market. I can't imagine it would be too difficult to segregate beef by country of origin.

Posted by Jay at March 4, 2005 01:34 PM

Hi Jay - Sorry I was ambiguous, I meant the USA. I believe it was the Dept. of Agriculture that said no to the Japanese request, partly due to the heavy trade of Canadian and American livestock across the border and partly because the bans imposed when a case of BSE is found are not based on science but on hysteria.

I seem to remember the Japanese found a cow under two years-old with BSE last year - the youngest ever - a discovery which challenges everything we believe we know about BSE.

Posted by Debbye at March 4, 2005 01:59 PM

Americans need to understand that while our government may not have the courage to link issues - its citizens certainly do. As a Canadian with centrist political views, I am one of the folks predisposed to support America on a whole host of issues, such as missile defense.

Sadly, the U.S. has been giving us the middle digit for so long on a variety of trade issues, folks like me shrug our shoulders when our government spurns the U.S. on military and security issues. American conservatives (online and in government) despise Canada, and take every opportunity to try and damage our economy. Why would we do any favours for people who hate us?

Posted by Flanstein at March 4, 2005 04:28 PM

"the Japanese found a cow under two years-old with BSE last year"

Do they have any idea how the cow got it? Feed? Imported cow? Imported cow parents?
"the U.S. has been giving us the middle digit"

Other than on the highway, Americans aren't inclined to give anybody the finger. When it comes to another country, we put up with an amazing amount of crap. Look at how we still protect Europe, in spite of the official German and French attitudes.

"American conservatives (online and in government) despise Canada, and take every opportunity to try and damage our economy"

Despise? I haven't seen that, I haven't seen a hint of that. Okay, except for Parish, and she's gone out of her way to ensure Americans hate her (hasn't really worked, anybody who even knows who she is just thinks she's a loonie). While we conservatives don't worship Canada like the liberals do, we certainly don't despise you.

Damage your economy? If we were to try that, in what way would that help us? Right now there's the timber and beef issues. Trade issues are always with us and always will be, they come and go. I know absolutely nothing about the timber issue, but the beef issue seems to be a problem with 1), the scientists not being able to tell the difference between their butts and a hole in the ground, and 2), the Japanese.

I don't know what created your anti-American attitude but I know one thing: I won't be giving you the finger over it. Americans are used to getting it, and most of us are thankful for it.

It tells us we're right.

Posted by Jay at March 4, 2005 07:20 PM

I don't think the missile defense had anything to do with it, but I do think the overall lack of support on a host of issues doesn't help. As for the Timber issue, quit dumping the prices and subsidizing the timber industry up north and we will be glad to settle the timber issue.

The labeling of the beef is a problem because a lot of the processing centers ( I believe i have this right) actually process both canadian and american cattle at the same time. Makes it harder to track and seperate the two. The beef inspectors don't really look at where the cattle came from, there only concern is the processing steps, and let me tell you, those are already long days for the inspectors.

Posted by wayne at March 5, 2005 06:34 AM

That's just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. If you can find a Canadian broadcaster who insults America the way Fox news insults my country then please, point them out.

The US, which has been poking it's thumb in Canada's eye for fifteen years on trade, shouldn’t be surprised so many oppose you on issues like MD.

Posted by Flansteen at March 5, 2005 05:13 PM

Well, here's a question for you. If you're an American in Toronto, how is it you missed the very cattlemen who sought and got that injunction on the news. They were actually coming out of the court house, celebrating the injunction and admitting, on camera, they'd EAT Canadian beeef. I guess you missed the market changes right after the announcement too? At least have what it takes to admit why this is continuing-money, and lots more for American cattlemen. That's what it's about.

Posted by D. Barrand at March 5, 2005 05:44 PM

Seriously? OK. How about the CBC approved show that picks stories out of American supermarket rags to show how stupid the average American is? That is the basis for the entire show. Stupid America. Does that qualify? You know, for a nation whose identity is wrapped up in taking shots at proactive nations, Canadians are amazingly sensitive to any criticism of their criticism. That is what Fox does, you know. Canada decides to build a monument to American deserters and Fox will poke fun at it. Canada criminalizes un-PC speech and Fox will make fun of it.
You talk as if Canada is this benevolent friend of the US and should not be subject to criticism. Americans view Canada as a nation of whiners who complain bitterly that they are utterly dependent on the goodwill of American consumers and our defensive umbrella and then tell us that the 9/11 terrorists were only responding to American policy that protects Israel and we had it coming.
You should declare economic war on the US. THAT is a courage I could respect. The US can then go through the laborious process of finding producers who need buyers and Canada can begin shipping its products overseas to avoid the dirty touch of American consumers. To hell with childish antics like this pointless MD decision. Do something that will really punish us.

Posted by mikem at March 5, 2005 06:07 PM

Mikem wrote:

"Do something that will really punish us."

The masochist said to the sadist, "hurt me, beat me". And the sadist responded "no!"

Posted by Joe Green at March 6, 2005 12:00 AM

And so, Joe, by your own analogy Canadians are either people who love to inflict pain on others or people who love to have pain inflicted upon themselves.

Start scrambling.

Posted by mikem at March 6, 2005 03:23 AM

"Seriously? OK. How about the CBC approved show that picks stories out of American supermarket rags to show how stupid the average American is? "

The show in question - from a few years ago - was a comedy called "Talking To Americans" starring Rick Mercer. Did I mention it was a comedy? You do know the difference between a comedy and a news show - don't you? In america, you have brodcasters who say things like:

"Coulter: Canada is "lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent";

"That is what Fox does, you know. Canada decides to build a monument to American deserters and Fox will poke fun at it."

Bzzt, wrong again. "Canada" did not make that decision, some far lefty mayor in some small BC town did. It was rescinded when he came to his senses.

"You should declare economic war on the US. THAT is a courage I could respect. The US can then go through the laborious process of finding producers who need buyers and Canada can begin shipping its products overseas to avoid the dirty touch of American consumers."

Sad that you do not understand the symbiotic nature of trade between our two countries. We are the largest trading block ever on the face of the earth. We buy more of your stuff than any other country. You buy more of our stuff than any other country. We cannot replace each other.

That is why we have trade agreements - to ensure neither party can damage the other. You routinely break these agreements, and purposely damage our economy. You then wonder why Canadians aren't more friendly to the US on security issues.

When the recently fired Tucker Carlson said this on CNN a few months ago " Canada needs the United States. The United States does not need Canada." he exemplified the ignorance many Americans have for for our nation.

Posted by Flanstein at March 6, 2005 11:05 AM

Oh, it was a comedy (duh). That would explain the difference between Canadian reaction to your comedy show (very popular) and the 'news show', Triumph the Insult Comedy Dog, whose airing on Conan resulted in a broad based investigation of those responsible for its broadcast and for inviting Conan to produce a show in Canada. Canada's laughable overreaction to a puppet dog for 'hatespeech' makes a mockery of your reassurance regarding the 'dumb Americans' show.
America has its problems with anti-free speech regulations but they are limited to college campuses where 'liberals' and leftists wield the most power. They are regularly found to be unconstitutional when brought out into the light of day by students. But Canada has the same anti-free speech regulations codified in its national laws and indeed in your version of a Bill of Rights. It is to laugh.
While Canadians regularly brag about their tolerance of others, other Western democracies are using your speech regulations as a warning sign of intolerance.

Posted by mikem at March 6, 2005 11:59 AM

"broad based investigation"

Yep, we sent the Mounties out...giggle...

Odd that you know so little about us, yet feel compelled to comment about our society. As i recall, this was the exact premise for "Talking To Americans". Amusing, don't you think?

Posted by Flanstein at March 6, 2005 01:23 PM

You are surely being ironic. In the internet age, what Canadians talk about is also available to non-Canadians. In fact, one of the first things we learned is that our much ignored northern neighbors are obsessed with America and Americans.
By the way, nice piece of Canadian logic with hyperbole. No Mounties, no story. Nice giggle too, are you french?

Posted by mikem at March 6, 2005 02:00 PM

Wayne: One tribunal after another has concluded that Canadian softwood lumber is not subsidized (through artificially low stumpage fees). The U.S. government has repeatedly ignored the rulings - the reason being the well organized U.S. lumber industry that had been hard hit due to the low Canadian dollar (I wouldn't be surprised if expensive employee medical benefits were also a contributing factor). The final insult is the Byrd Amendment whereby the punitive duties collected will go to the lumber producers directly thereby doubling punishing Canadian lumber producers (first they pay the tafiff and then the tariff subsidizes their U.S. competitors). If the last comment sounds over the top, the World Trade Organization has ruled against the Byrd Amendment and Canada has now drawn up a list of punative retaliatory tariffs against many American exports.

Posted by John B at March 6, 2005 02:10 PM

"are you french?"

Why are you poor folks so obsessed with hating the French? Relax, have another one of those watery beers that you like so much and continue to believe you know something about Canada based on what you "read" on the Internet.

Carlson: "Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras"

Posted by Flanstein at March 6, 2005 07:58 PM

You are missing the point, Flanstein. What we read (why the scare quotes?) on the internet is what Canadians read in their newspapers. Get it? Online Canadian newspapers? Online Canadian columnists? Understand now? Geez.
I don't like the word hate too much in this usage. More like we despise the french. If you have to ask why, then you don't have much interest in history, recorded or in the making.

Posted by mikem at March 6, 2005 10:50 PM


I finally figured this out!

I suspect she just made a database from posts on freerepublic or something. Hence the "mikem" and his seemingly bizzare rants.


Posted by Blackglasses at March 6, 2005 11:42 PM

"the Byrd Amendment whereby the punitive duties collected will go to the lumber producers directly thereby doubling punishing Canadian lumber producers"

Two comments on that (neither of which solve the problem or even respond to the problem):

1. Byrd doesn't represent the US or our attitudes, he's an embarassment to pretty much everybody (like kerry and kennedy who have a whole state somehow)

2. Ref the money going to the timber producers - whatever the situation is, at least it's not money going to the govt which never accomplishes anything.

And again I stress this is only a side note, not pro or anti the conversation going on or taking sides (I think).

Oh, okay, what I was really saying was "NUKE CANADA!". Happy now?

Posted by Jay at March 7, 2005 03:32 AM


What i suspect you "read" is the usual hate-Canada rants on the freerepublic. Hence your confusion that "Talking To Americans" was somehow a news show on a par with the dribble from Fox.

p.s. You do know there is a difference between "French" and "French-Canadian" don't you?

Posted by Flanstein at March 7, 2005 08:59 AM


Sending the import duties to the U.S.producers constitutes a subsidy to the U.S. companies. This is the reason why the WTO has ruled against this practice. This isn't just a Canadian softwood lumber issue - the appeal to the WTO included the European Union and I believe many other countries in Asia and Australia. This is a hell of an incentive for a U.S. company to claim it's being injured by dumping and then seek punative tariffs which would then go to the U.S. complainant. BTW, if I remember correctly one example of retaliatory duties proposed by Canada on U.S. products is yachts - something like a 100% tariff. Nobody benefits from this type of nonsense.

Posted by John B at March 7, 2005 10:54 AM

What we read (why the scare quotes?) on the internet is what Canadians read in their newspapers. Get it? Online Canadian newspapers? Online Canadian columnists? Understand now? Geez.
(Hopefully repetition will work for you, as it does with school children.)

Posted by mikem at March 7, 2005 12:07 PM

Seems to me Mikem needs to read less and understand more. Perhaps then he'll understand the difference between comedy and news.

"Canada decides to build a monument to American deserters"

Bzzt - wrong!

"Tell us that the 9/11 terrorists were only responding to American policy that protects Israel and we had it coming."

Bzzt - this nation never expressed those views - wrong again!

Here's something you Do need to learn: Canada is already the biggest single foreign source of US petroleum. Ahead of Saudia Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico. Add that to our huge exports of natural gas and electricity - and it seems to me you need to stand in the corner and be nice to us - else we'll make your semi-literate backside freeze in the dark...

Posted by Flanstein at March 7, 2005 05:04 PM

Whistling in the dark. Weak. Not quite as sad as Canadians taking credit for British action in the War of 1812, but sad nonetheless.

No doubt you will, in a few years, be expounding on how Canadians led the march on Baghdad and sparked off the democratic wave that changed the face of the Middle East.

You forgot the scare quotes.

Posted by mikem at March 7, 2005 08:29 PM


My you have been a busy little boy! Unlike most of your countrymen, you've LEARNED about the War of 1812. How proud you must be! I learned about it too - when I was in grade seven....

Methinks that the possibility of Iraq turning into another theocracy is just as likely as it being a democracy. In ten years time, with American troops still inside of Iraq and mourning their 20 thousandth death, will YOU still have your stomach hanging over your keyboard - expounding on that which you are witless about?

p.s. Have you finally learned how and why Canada is so important to the economy of the US?

Posted by Flanstein at March 8, 2005 09:52 AM


You are correct about British actions during the War of 1812 but I've never seen it presented in Canada as anything else. There were Canadians who were key to the fighting - the native Indians who fought with the British and of course the Voltigeurs of Quebec.

"The Voltigeurs Canadiens was a light infantry corps recruited by Charles de Salaberry in Lower Canada in 1812. The Voltigeurs were the heroes of the Battle of Châteauguay during the War of 1812. The Voltigeurs were disbanded in 1815, after the end of the war, but there is a modern regiment named after them: Les Voltigeurs de Québec."

Imagine - getting your ass kicked by a group of Frenchmen.

BTW - I believe one of the reasons there was no Canadian militia (other than the above noted Voltigeurs) is that there had been so many recent immigrants to Upper Canada from the U.S. seeking land (I'm not referring here to the Loyalists who came before) that the British suspected where their loyalties lay.

Posted by John B at March 8, 2005 10:46 AM


Further background on the Voltigeurs, de Salaberry and Chateauguay:

"The Battle of Chateauguay, October 26, 1813, took place during the War of 1812. An American army of 4000 men was advancing on Montreal. A much smaller British force, led by Charles de Salaberry, encountered the Americans at the Chateauguay River in Lower Canada. Most of the Canadians were French-speaking Voltigeurs. The defenders blew horns in the woods to fool the Americans into thinking that they were far more numerous. The Americans were discouraged by this show of resistance and retreated after only two hours of fighting. The battle had an important effect on morale in Canada. It was the first battle in which the British forces were mainly made up of Canadians. It also showed convincingly that the French Canadians would remain loyal to the British".

Posted by John B at March 8, 2005 10:50 AM

mikem, why are you having so much trouble with the War of 1812?

The facts are pretty clear. The US invaded Canada. Canadians, Canadiens, First Nations, and British Army Officers repelled the attack. Then they marched down to Washington and burned down the White House as a reprisal for the American sacking of York (Toronto). The only successful American action in that war was by Andrew Jackson in New Orleans in terms of its defence. Otherwise, America today would be part of Greater British North America, and the people in your country would have been spared much of the trauma that you have suffered since, particularly the American Civil War.

The only remaining questions out of that period are reburying American War dead, and addressing the question of "war reparations" that the US have avoided for nearly 200 years.

Posted by Joe Green at March 8, 2005 02:09 PM

I have no "problem" with the war of 1812. I mentioned it because it is brought up repeatedly by Canadians on this blog whenever their masculinity is threatened by Americans like myself who dare to criticize Canadian collaboration with and support of totalitarian regimes. (In my opinion, the french in french-Canadian.)
The war did not happen in a vacuum. America, in reaction to British interference and British interment of American sailors at sea, sent a warning to Britain, the most powerful country in the world, by invading the nearest British colonial territory in Canada. The final result was a treaty in which Britain agreed to respect American sovereignty and independence. For Canada, she remained a British colony until very recently, never finding the courage to seek independence. I do remember the image of your former sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, on Canadian currency not too many years ago.

So America, a fledgling democracy, remained independent and became the most powerful nation in the world, a defender of freedom and democracy, risking its treasure and citizens countless times to protect and extend freedom and democracy to other nations. Canada, in turn, remained a British colony and, attached to British forces and leadership sometimes found a bit of glory and in fact found itself on the right side of history many times. But left to its own supply of courage, independent modern day Canada looks for the seemingly easy way of collaboration and appeasement with the bullies of the world. Many Americans, myself included, have tried to understand how our brave northern neighbors found itself in this position. What we have concluded is that what we witnessed in WWII, just for example, reflected British leadership in Canadian affairs, and what we see now is, unfortunately, the independent Canada.

(Look at what is happening in the Middle East these past few weeks. Britain and Australia, your brothers, can proudly say that they played a starring role with America in what many (not leftists, of course) see as a heartening wave of empowerment sweeping through previously hopeless citizenry. Canada, for some unfathomable reason takes this very moving moment in Lebanese hopes for independence to express support for Syria's decades old occupation of Lebanon.
W T F is Canada thinking?

Posted by mikem at March 8, 2005 04:04 PM

"Quit dumping low priced timber"

Are you this stupid. Are you actually this freaking stupid? You think the US isn't involved in dumping on Asian countries? Or do you have exclusive dumping rights.

"The US has put up with a lot of crap from Europe"

Flip that around and I think you will start to make more sense. You fail to realise as the largest polluter, by far, in the world, you pollute not only your air, but the whole worlds. You don't sign Kyoto because it would hurt your economy. I guess the economies of Germany, France, Japan, and others who did sign Kyoto don't count in your books.

What made me laugh was when Bush visited Germany and said, "This great nation is the heart of Europe." I thought that the center of Europe had shifted East, and that Poland was now the new European Superpower.

Bush also asked Europe to decrease its government subsidies for its framers, making prices too low, but refused to do the same for its farmers when asked by the EU. It will be sweet when he is given the finger.

Take the star-spangled wool off your eyes, and realise that you are not the most important people on the planet, just the ones who get most attention for their screwups.

Posted by Jeff at March 8, 2005 07:17 PM


Re: The War of 1812 - a reality check:

"In reality, it was not so much the infringement of neutral rights that occasioned the actual outbreak of hostilities as the desire of the frontiersmen for free land, which could only be obtained at the expense of the Native Americans and the British. Moreover, the West suspected the British, with some justification, of attempting to prevent American expansion and of encouraging and arming the Native Americans. Matters came to a head after the battle of Tippecanoe (1811); the radical Western group believed that the British had supported the Native American confederacy, and they dreamed of expelling the British from Canada. Their militancy was supported by Southerners who wished to obtain West Florida from the Spanish (allies of Great Britain). Among the prominent “war hawks” in the 12th Congress were Henry Clay , John C. Calhoun , Langdon Cheves , Felix Grundy , Peter Porter, and others, who managed to override the opposition of John Randolph and of the moderates."

"... she remained a British colony until very recently, never finding the courage to seek independence."

Try 1867 - that's 138 years. I guess we have differing views of what recently means. BTW - the queen is still on the currency (and many stamps too).

".. attached to British forces and leadership sometimes found a bit of glory and in fact found itself on the right side of history many times."

Like when - WW I when 240,000 Canadians were killed or wounded (American casualties totalled 360,000 dead and wounded - with ten times the population).

"More an army than a corps, the Canadians enjoyed an unbroken run of success during Third Ypres and during the so-called 'Hundred Days' in 1918. Increasingly the Canadians were at the forefront of the BEF's efforts."

"Largely responsible for the planning and execution of the success assault against Vimy Ridge, Currie remained vocal (and successful) in arguing for the retention of the Canadians as a single coherent fighting force."

See also:

"At Canal du Nord in September of 1918, Currie flatly refused to carry out Haig's orders to attack across a canal and into a fortified German trench. With the support of General Byng, Currie had bridges quickly assembled and crossed the canal at night, surprising the Germans with an attack in the morning. This proved the effectiveness of Canadian engineers, for whom Haig had no use. Currie believed in the specialization of troops and as formally organized battalions of combat engineers to move wth the troops. As the war neared its end, the Canadian forces pressed on towards Germany, strengthening their reputation as one of the most feared and respected armies of the war in Canada's Hundred Days which included the Battle of Amiens from August 8-11, 1918."

I suppose we also have differing views on what "attached to British forces and leadership" means.

".. Many Americans, myself included, have tried to understand how our brave northern neighbors found itself in this position."

If you had started here I would agree with your post but I don't understand what you mean by British leadership in Canadian affairs. Mackenzie King even delayed Canada's entry into WW II by about a week to make the point that Canada had entered the war willingly and not automatically as in WW I.

Canada's slide into irrelevance began, in my opinion, with the Trudeau era. I'm not sure why but it does coincide with large scale immigration from non-traditional sources. I suspect this wave of immigrants, many from former colonies, have a different view of Canada's relationship with the U.S. and other traditional allies. The Liberal party has been very successful in tapping into this group of voters. The Liberals have also managed to remain in power for most of the past 40 years due to the idiocy of Ontario in always voting Liberal (therefore they can be ignored) and Quebec being fickle but voting in a block (which means they can change a government and must be courted).

As for accusation of collaborating with the bullies of the world - that's a bit rich isn't it coming from an American. Which of your statesmen is responsible for the famous quote "he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he's our son-of-a-bitch". Let's see who the U.S. has collaberated with - how about the Taliban (they fought the Russians), perhaps Saudi Arabia (wonderful place - unless you are kaffir), maybe Somalia (pre-collapse of Siad Barre) or perhaps Somoza in Nicaragua.

Posted by John B at March 8, 2005 07:54 PM

John: First, thanks for the reply.

I don't check wikepedia for information because the few times I did follow a link there I found that the facts are whatever the last propagandist has forced through the filtering process. That doesn't necessarily detract from any arguments you make. Just a point that it is not the best reference to use. It is more in the style of a 'people's' encyclopedia, subject to the political persuasion of the most recent 'editor'.

"The period between the wars brought the culmination of Canada's growth to independent nationhood within the British Commonwealth". That is from an apparently Canadian explanation of Canada's movement toward independence. And even that provides the caveat 'within the British Commonwealth'. In my opinion and certainly from an American point of view, being independent "within the British Commonwealth" is not independence. (As in America, within NATO; or America within the UN. It does say "British" commonwealth, after all.) I am aware that Canada waited a week before declaring war and that she did that to show its independence from Britain. I just don't see that as such a powerful expression of independence. More like a show put on and transparently done. Regardless, Canada did the right thing.

So your explanation is that the war of 1812 was just a war of aggression and happened in a vacuum, or within the arena of American imperialism? I don't blame Canadians alone for viewing it this way because it wasn't Canadians that menaced American independence and interred American sailors at sea in servitude. But Canada was a British colony and nearby and so that is where we struck first. But you attempt to exclude British responsibility. This is of the "BZZT, you're wrong" type dismissal I hear all the time except you have found someone who actually puts it out there on the web. I am unconvinced and apparently so are historians who routinely refer to British actions as resulting in the war of 1812.
I mean in no way to detract from what I see as a proud Canadian history of fighting on the side of freedom and democracy for others. But reality is reality. Canada did not take its independence from Britain, as Americans did when Britain was near its zenith. It didn't fight for it, or demand it. Britain gifted Canada's independence after colonialism came to no longer be viewed as a prerogative of the powerful, but as the immoral slavery of the powerful over the weak.
As I have said before, Canada, despite having little inclination toward freedom for itself, has been willing to sacrifice for other's freedom. I respect that. Our conclusion of British vs. purely Canadian influence as an explanation for Canada's turn from its prior ideals is simply an attempt to reconcile the Canada that we see with the Canada we grew up with. If you are trying to say that Canada has acted independently of British influence for the last hundred plus years, then we are at an impasse.

How does Canada of WWII fame end up supporting Saddam Hussein's regime? How does Canada end up allowing Aljazeera to broadcast in Canada, but not FOX? What does that say to Americans, that Canada is so 'tolerant' that it will allow the media of choice for terrorists and Jew haters worldwide to broadcast in Canada but bans FOX as propagandists for America? I mean, come on. Do you blame Americans for seeing such as proof of the inherent anti-Americanism that has replaced idealism in Canada? Or of the growing influence of anti-Semitism in Canada?
(Yes, I know that Fox recently made the cut, over the objections of your elected officials.)

Taliban? As you said, you do remember the Soviet Union. Remember they invaded Afghanistan? Do you really want us to apologize for supporting Afghanistan then? You are reaching with this stuff and pitifully so. America has had to shake hands with the devil many times. Hell, we supplied the Soviet Union, along with many others, during WWII. Are you so entrenched in anti-Americanism that you cannot recall the arena in which these hard choices were made.
Finally, your explanation, "my son of a bitch" is very telling. Americans certainly need to know that we are the enemy that Canadians oppose when Canada shakes hands with today's devils. So let's not hear further complaints from others about Canada not being simply anti-American. It will save a lot of Canadians from trying to explain how not supporting the spread of democarcy is the moral choice today.
Apologies and congrats to anybody who made it all the way through my book length comment.

Posted by mikem at March 8, 2005 09:54 PM

"SOME" CANADIANS? Oh dear dear Deb. Don't you mean "ALL" Canadians? After all, Us Nothern Commies pee on Old Glory nightly while we sing the "Internationale"

Please never change Deb. I need your overly self-important and puffed up rambles to balance out BBC World.

Kudos to mikem and his derailment tactics. Nothing like a big idiot to distract everyone from bad points made by someone who is just badly informed and heavily biased (not to mention wrong). Debbye obviously shows some smarts, but is so misguided it makes me weep for the future.


Do you work for Amtrack?

Posted by Blackglasses at March 9, 2005 12:57 AM

"How does Canada end up allowing Aljazeera to broadcast in Canada, but not FOX?"

This is the problem with Canada-hating conservatives who make the free-republic the repository of all their knowledge. Stupid in....stupid out...

Hint: I can watch FOX right now if I wanted (with their wall-to-wall M. Jackson coverage, who wouldn't salivate at the thought) but I have to go to the states to watch Aljizzeera

Posted by Flanstein at March 9, 2005 07:31 AM

So is that just your style of debate, Flanstein? Are you going to simply deny, deny, deny every reference I make to Canadian events or policy as if the rest of the world doesn't have access to the same newspapers and columnists that you do? "Bzzt, wrong". I've heard that from you so many times I am convinced that this is the secret debating tip Canadians learn when they graduate from high school.

Posted by mikem at March 9, 2005 10:08 AM


Not that a white-winger like yourself would ever recognise a fact, even if he tripped over one, here they are:

Al jizeera was only allowed onto Canadian airwaves IF the cable company broadcasting their signal had a content delay that would ensure any Jew-hatred would not be broadcast. To this point, no cable company has bothered to offer the service in Canada because of the enormous expense of providing this constant monitoring would cause.

Aljizz is NOT being brodcast in Canada. If you want to hear their Jew-hatred, you have to go to (ta-da!) the US where it is available on satellite.

At the same time that aljizz was given provisional approval, the case for Fox was still being contemplated and was approved some months later. For those of us who get it, it is an amusing pastiche of hosts shouting at liberals and minorities they disagree with and wall-to-wall coverage of whatever celebrity trial catches the fancy of the trailer park set.

Here in Ottawa, I have acces to the CBC, CTV and Global news services. Additionally, I get CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, CNBC, BBC, TV5 and the aformentioned Fox comedy, er, news channel. How many Canadian stations do YOU get?

Posted by Flanstein at March 9, 2005 10:51 AM

Gee, how 'white' (as you put it) of you to admit I didn't make it all up. Why do I have to work at it to get you to change from 'it never happened' to 'it did happen, but here is how it actually works out'?
How do you figure that your excellent cable or satellite access disproves my point? Did not Aljazeera gain approval while Fox was denied the same? That is my point. I already stated that I am aware Fox is now allowed to broadcast, but that required protests from, I guess, the 'dumb' Canadians who did not appreciate seeing Fox backhanded and Aljazeera handed a welcome mat. Your assurance of the Jew Hating filter that Canadian authorities were willing to put in effect is touching. I'm sure Canadian Jews were much reassured.
The point is that Canadian authorities approved the network of choice for terrorists and refused Fox. Spin that any way you like. And stop blaming Americans for taking notice of such inanities.
And no, I do not watch Canadian broadcasting and am doubtful of its availability, other than satellite, which I do not have. Astonishingly, there is not a great deal of demand for it among "bastard" Americans. There is not as great an interest in America for 'What are Canadians doing today?' as the reverse. Take that as you like.

Posted by mikem at March 9, 2005 11:56 AM


Notice how his posts never really have anything to do with the topic at hand?

Its a Freep bot that Debbye edits to "school" anyone who dissents from her badly informed writings and parroting

Posted by Blackglasses at March 9, 2005 12:01 PM


I fear you are sadly correct. Poor ol' makim is one those sad minority of Americans who believes the sun rises and sets on their pasty posteriors.

The kinda fella who brandishes outrage that at one time WE didn't have access to FOX, yet sees no need for America to hear viewpoints other than their own. The kinda fella that never gets tired of looking in the mirror or lecturing others about why we are not more like them.

The kinda fella that expresses outrage that the CRTC approved Aljizz, when it has already been long available in his own country. The kinda fella who's overwhelmed by the stink of his own hypocricy.

Fortunately, most Americans, either in TO or in their own country are NOT like this stooge - a fact I have to keep reminding myself of....

Posted by Flanstein at March 9, 2005 12:18 PM

Oh, the sharp barbs of the Canadian intelligencia. How can this American ever face the morning again?

(Should lily white, nondiverse Canada really be examining others' "pasty posteriors"?)

Posted by mikem at March 9, 2005 01:03 PM

"How can this American ever face the morning again?"

The same way you do every day - a quart of malt liquor, beat the wife, clean the trailer and then polish your hand grenades while watching Fox....

Posted by Flanstein at March 9, 2005 01:21 PM

Don't forget to mention the ignorant stereotyping and ad hominem attacks that Americans employ in place of debate.

(I see you have abandoned argument for the safe harbors of trolling, a more comfortable intellectual pursuit for a Canadian.)

Posted by mikem at March 9, 2005 02:12 PM

"One of the worst things about American political discourse is the fact that many of its commentators have a short attention span and jump to immediate results, with little or no follow up. See Afghanistan. Everyone assumes its a success, despite the fact that large swaths of the country are not under NATO control

Wait and see for Iraq."

That is the Canadian Blackglasses (on another thread), Flanstein's intellectual peer, barely containing his hope for disaster in Iraq so soon after the world witnessed the brave Iraqi people marching to the polls in the face of terrorist threats. And why sacrifice Iraqi hopes for democracy? So Canadians can face themselves again after opposing Iraq's liberation from decades of dictatorship. Contemptible.

“with little or no follow up” We are still there. How is that for follow up? In fact, Canadians usually use that fact to 'prove' that Afghanistan is a Vietnam. Keep your 'arguments' straight.

Posted by mikem at March 9, 2005 02:39 PM

That's a laugh coming from you troll boy - since you ignored every single fact i brought to this thread. It started with this from me:

"If you can find a Canadian broadcaster who insults America the way Fox news insults my country, then please, point them out."

The best you could come up with was a long defunct comedy show called Talking to Americans". When your stupidity was pointed out, you slithered to other topics hoping we wouldn't notice. We did...

Posted by Flanstein at March 9, 2005 02:41 PM

Give yourself some credit, Flanstein. You have done an admirable job of skipping over a number of embarrassing Canadian issues. And since repetition sometimes works with Canadians I'll state again, I do not watch Canadian broadcasts, so stop with the demands that I prove I do.

troll boy..stupidity... Practicing for your PhD orals?

Posted by mikem at March 9, 2005 03:03 PM



Posted by Blackglasses at March 9, 2005 04:19 PM


Sorry, for the monosyllabic rejoinders, I was simply trying not to talk over your pointy little head.

I keep forgetting that the task at hand isn't your constant humiliation, but rather impressing upon less thin-skinned Yanks that if you want our co-operation on security, stop dickin' around on trade...

Posted by Flanstein at March 9, 2005 04:49 PM

"..if you want our co-operation on security, stop dickin' around on trade..."

Well, considering the trade imbalance and the fact that Canada depends on American markets for its very survival, I think we will just do what is best for us and let Canada do what it will. We will fire missiles over Canada if it is required to protect America, as Canadian politicians already understand. Martin is just throwing a hissy fit following Canadian dismay at the Iraqi election turnout. Canadian leftists have done a good job of weakening Canada's military, to the point where Canada could not even provide assistance to the tsunami victims using military aircraft, let alone protect itself. So, once again America and Australia had to pull Canada's weight. Believe me, Americans are counting on Canada for zip.
By the way, the "humiliation" of your opponent in debate should be evident and not, as in your post, stated. If you need to proclaim victory with juvenile statements then you have already lost. Your words should speak for themselves, not require reassurance.

Posted by mikem at March 9, 2005 05:35 PM

" Canada depends on American markets for its very survival"

If you weren't an economic illiterate, you would know that the reverse is true as well - the US depends on Canada for its very survival. What we provide you in raw and manufactured goods is essential to your economy. No oil, gas, or electricity from us and you'd be freezing in the dark cursing the day you were ever born.

Your humiliation continues I guess...

Posted by Flanstein at March 9, 2005 05:55 PM

"Your humiliation continues I guess...'

Don't forget to tap your heals together as you say it.

I will not take you seriously as long as you continue to throw out unsupported 'facts'.

Total Canadian exports in 2003 (US)$271 Billion
To the US $233 !!!!!

Total American exports in 2003 (US)$723
To Canada $169

So, you consider trade follies to be an equal threat to the US? With Canada's weakened military and international standing, she is going to demand trade concessions from us before she allows us to defend her? That is just a pathetic expectation, from many angles.

Posted by mikem at March 9, 2005 06:19 PM

You're not very smart are you? What is it that America is buying from Canada that it can do without? Gas? oil? Electricity? If you didn't have these, how WOULD the rest of your industry operate?

Take your time, sit there and think about it before you answer - no need for you to look stupid...again...

Posted by Flanstein at March 9, 2005 06:26 PM


Re: War of 1812:

I never intended to state that the War of 1812 happened in a vacuum – only that it had multiple causes including both grievances against Britain (France as well but they were minor relative to Britain) and territorial expansion. As my previous references weren’t up to your caliber perhaps the following will suffice.

“The primary cause for the call to invade Canada was the obvious support the British in Canada were giving the Indians of the Northwest. The Americans did not miss that Canada was Britain's last foothold on the continent either. Southerners openly discussed annexing the Spanish claims in Florida because of Spain's alliance with Britain. As relations with Britain worsened the call for expansion both north and south increased in volume and frequency”

“The invasion and conquest of Canada was a major objective of the United States in the War of 1812. Among the significant causes of the war were the continuing clash of British and American interests in the Northwest Territory and the desire of frontier expansionists to seize Canada while Great Britain was preoccupied with the Napoleonic Wars. “

“The immediate origins of the war were seizure of American ships, insults and injuries to American seamen by the British Navy, and rapid expansion of the American frontier. The British outrages at sea took two distinct forms. One was the seizure and forced sale of merchant ships and their cargoes for allegedly violating the British blockade of Europe. Although France had declared a counterblockade of the British Isles and had seized American ships, England was the chief offender because its Navy had greater command of the seas. The second, more insulting, type of outrage was the capture of men from American vessels for forced service in the Royal Navy. The pretext for impressment was the search for deserters, who, the British claimed, had taken employment on American vessels.”

“The seat of anti-British fever was in the Northwest and the lower Ohio Valley, where the land-hungry frontiersmen had no doubt that their troubles with the Indians were the result of British intrigue. Stories were circulated after every Indian raid of British Army muskets and equipment being found on the field. By 1812 the westerners were convinced that their problems could best be solved by forcing the British out of Canada.”

“While the western "war hawks" urged war in the hope of conquering Canada, the people of Georgia, Tennessee, and the Mississippi Territory entertained similar designs against Florida, a Spanish possession. The fact that Spain and England were allies against Napoleon presented the southern war hawks with an excuse for invading Florida. By this time, also, the balance of political power had shifted south and westward; ambitious party leaders had no choice but to align themselves with the war hawks, and 1812 was a Presidential election year.”

If being part of the Commonwealth indicates servitude – than perhaps you should change your opinion about your ally du jour, Australia – after all they are members of the British Commonwealth. You may also wish to inform India, Nigeria, Malaysia, Singapore, Trinidad, South Africa, New Zealand et al that they are not independent.

Regarding Canada’s independence from Britain (or “independence” as you put it), I can’t say if you’ve heard of the rebellions of 1837 in both Upper and Lower Canada. The rebellion was more against colonial administration than English rule – Upper Canada was being settled by British immigrants and the Quebecois probably did better under the British than had they been part of the U.S. (the British guaranteed their religion and language). The rebellions were put down but the British did introduce reforms allowing responsible government. After Britain introduced free trade the colonies no longer made economic sense – they cost England a lot of money to administer and the colonies lost a guaranteed market in England. Confederation came more out of economic rationale and political necessity (due to post civil war U.S. expansion) than any pangs of English guilt over the morals of colonialism. If the Brits felt so guilty about the immorality of colonialism, why did they hang on to India (the Crown Jewel), Hong Kong, fight the Boers in South Africa (with the first concentration camps) or continue expansion in Africa – please be consistent.

As for Canada’s attitude towards Britain at the time – I suppose that Sir John A. Macdonald stated it best when he said in 1891 “As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born,
a British subject I will die. With my utmost effort, with my
latest breath, will I oppose the veiled treason which
attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure
our people from their allegiance."

Regarding your statement “If you are trying to say that Canada has acted independently of British influence for the last hundred plus years, then we are at an impasse.” Let’s turn that around, when in the last hundred years has Britain interfered in Canada’s affairs? Canada entered WW I by default but enthusiasm for Britain likely would have guaranteed it anyway – conscription wasn’t introduced until 1917 (and no, the war didn’t begin in 1917 when the U.S. entered).

BTW, the “son of a bitch” remark isn’t a comment on the U.S. –it’s a quote from Franklin Roosevelt regarding Somoza in Nicaragua. As for the growing anti-Semitism in Canada, I doubt it’s any better or worse than in the U.S. Canada has finally booted Zundel’s sorry ass out of Canada and, as has been pointed out, al-Jazeera has limits placed upon it.

I didn’t expect to get into a pissing match with you. I actually support what the U.S. is currently doing and I would be the first to admit that Canada has been getting a free ride – probably for the last 35 years or since the Trudeau era. I certainly haven't voted for those assholes. IMO, Preston Manning is the best prime Minister this country never had.

Cheers and goodnight.

Posted by John B at March 9, 2005 08:07 PM

You people are making me ill. All of you. I will no longer write on this board. Good riddance. I actually now have the most respect for Blackglasses. Appalling, all of you.

Posted by Rafer at March 9, 2005 11:20 PM

Flanstein, what is it with Canadians and their need to synthesize some fantasy power that they wield over America? Do you think that America will not adjust to Canadian blackmail? If Canada threw a tantrum and cut off energy sales to the US we would simply weather the temporary shortage and get it from somewhere else. Meanwhile, 80% of your exports would come to a sudden halt and you would have to start finding customers for your cross ocean transported goods. Canadian products are a convenience to American consumers. US consumers are all but the entire market for Canadian goods. Quit jerking off to your little Napoleonic fantasies and get used to dealing with feelings of inferiority. Canadians have been whining about their reliance on America for decades and suddenly Flanstein has found a way to reverse that. It is to laugh.

Posted by mikem at March 10, 2005 04:08 AM

" we would simply weather the temporary shortage and get it from somewhere else."

Sad that that you never took a course in economics...

mikem AKA Forest Gump...

Posted by Flanstein at March 10, 2005 07:33 AM

"mikem AKA Forest Gump..."

Ahh, a swipe at 'retards'. There you go, Flanstein. Flexing that famous Canadian intolerance and insensitivity. What is next, 'cripple'?

Posted by mikem at March 10, 2005 01:28 PM


Posted by Flanstein at March 10, 2005 04:49 PM