Many Americans already think Canadians are too permissive with drug users, too lax toward terrorists, too lenient with criminals in general. Some are convinced we blithely let mad cows stumble into the United States.Why doesn't surprise me? If you care, read more here. If you don't care, blame ALPF.
Now U.S. agriculture officials have another bone to pick with Canada, which they have accused of being soft on starlings.
Fruit farmers in Washington state want British Columbia authorities to join them in a trapping and poisoning program to help rid the border region of the speckled pests instead of merely frightening them away with noisemakers. ... Killing birds -- "population control" in official parlance -- is not provincial policy.
But seriously folks. This is yet another, albeit small, illustration of a difference of priorities and approach. In comments to this post, RobfromAlberta sent a link to a Weekly Standard story (I won't link to them - if you want to read it, do the work), deriding what they call "Bush refugees" - Americans living in Canada. I'm not sure how the people quoted qualify for that label, since they couldn't have left post-election. But hey, the WS can't be bothered with accurate details.
The story is ridiculous, based on gross distortion and exaggeration. Another big surprise. It says: "The headline in Ontario's Windsor Star tells you all you need to know about Canadian triumphalism: "Cheers to us, we're No. 4.""
As for the "We're number four" quote, what a great illustration of how differently neocons and progressives view the world. Labash apparently sees this as a sign of weakness and inferiority. I read a quote like that and I think Canada sounds like an incredibly sane place to live. Plus, it's just a funny thing to say. Maybe the neocon missed the irony? They've been known to do that.Yes indeed. And this reminded me of a conversation I had not long ago with an old friend.
In explaining my choice of Canada over the US, I used my standard line, "When was the last time Canada invaded another country?" He said, snidely, "Well, they probably can't. They barely have a military."
He sounded like having a military was an act of god or nature, and the US happens to be endowed with more of this god-given specialness than its northern neighbor. I replied that, yes, Canada probably doesn't have the resources to launch an invasion, and that's a function of purposeful choices - and isn't that wonderful.
The US chooses to spend on its military. (Though not, it must be noted, on the needs of the rank-and-file - only on the high-tech weaponry that benefits corporate America.) Canada makes other choices: health care, for example. Personally, I'd rather be number three in the world's top places to live than number one in exporting death and destruction.