Michael Moore's open letter to Canada regarding Federal election on January 23, 2006

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Michael Moore is currently in production on his next movie. As an avid lover of all things Canadian, he has issued the following statement regarding Canada's upcoming election on Monday:

 

Oh, Canada -- you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right? I know you have a great sense of humor, and certainly a well-developed sense of irony, but this is no longer funny. Maybe it's a new form of Canadian irony -- reverse irony! OK, now I get it. First, you have the courage to stand against the war in Iraq -- and then you elect a prime minister who's for it. You declare gay people have equal rights -- and then you elect a man who says they don't. You give your native peoples their own autonomy and their own territory -- and then you vote for a man who wants to cut aid to these poorest of your citizens. Wow, that is intense! Only Canadians could pull off a hat trick of humor like that. My hat's off to you.

 

Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do. You already have too many Americans telling you what to do. Well, actually, you've got just one American who keeps telling you to roll over and fetch and sit. I hope you don't feel this appeal of mine is too intrusive but I just couldn't sit by, as your friend, and say nothing. Yes, I agree, the Liberals have some 'splainin' to do. And yes, one party in power for more than a decade gets a little... long. But you have a parliamentary system (I'll bet you didn't know that -- see, that's why you need Americans telling you things!). There are ways at the polls to have your voices heard other than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

These are no ordinary times, and as you go to the polls on Monday, you do so while a man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest? Is that how you want millions of us down here to see you from now on? The next notch in the cowboy belt? C'mon, where's your Canadian pride? I mean, if you're going to reduce Canada to a cheap download of Bush & Co., then at least don't surrender so easily. Can't you wait until he threatens to bomb Regina? Make him work for it, for Pete's sake.

 

But seriously, I know you're not going to elect a guy who should really be running for governor of Utah. Whew! I knew it! You almost had me there. Very funny. Don't do that again. God, I love you, you crazy cold wonderful neighbors to my north. Don't ever change.

 

Michael Moore

 

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=192

 

Gee look at that he calls them "Bush and Co." - that's what I've been calling them [in my online postings] for over three years and - then the mention of "Regina" - a little infamy for my town - heck - I did send him a link to my protest site - maybe he looked into it?!

[Guest guest]

Today is Election Day in Canada, and all the polls show that change is on the way. The Liberal Party's 12-year reign is finally coming to an end. The Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, look poised to form the next government.

 

It's possible, though not likely, that the Conservatives will win an outright majority in .. But even if they don't, and need to form a coalition government, they will have more of a chance to move an agenda than one would expect. As a political consultant explained to me in Washington a few months ago before heading north to work for the Conservatives, the leaders of the Tories' prospective coalition partner, the separatist Bloc Quebecois, are willing to give Harper several years of rule (but expect lots of Tory reforms to exempt Quebec). The Conservative victory will be a real one, and not just for Harper and his party but for Canada, for North America, and for the world.

 

For Canada, it will mean the end of rule by crooks. In April, I covered the explosive revelations, leaked to an American blog, in the testimony of ad agency president Jean Brault. The New York Times covered the story the next day, and the publishing ban was lifted on most of Brault's testimony by the afternoon. Just when it looked like the Grits (as the Liberals are nicknamed) would weather the story -- they were comfortably ahead in the polls in November -- Canada's financial regulators opened a criminal investigation of Ralph Goodale, the sitting Minister of Finance.

 

Suspicions were raised by a flurry of trading in dividend-paying stocks shortly before Goodale announced a cut in dividend taxation. While it's not at all clear that Goodale did anything wrong, the insider trading allegations reminded voters of the ruling party's general corruption; the polls quickly turned against the Liberals. Even the usually left-leaning Toronto Globe & Mail has endorsed the Conservatives, as has the leading French-language paper La Presse.

 

For North America, it will mean a much friendlier partnership between the U.S. and Canada. Prime Minister Paul Martin has hitched his political wagon to shameless Yankee-bashing this campaign, accusing Harper of being a Washington puppet and bellowing that he "will make sure that Canada speaks with an independent voice now, tomorrow, and always." In a country that defines itself largely by its differences from the U.S., it seemed like a sure-fire strategy. But as David Sax points out (subscription required) in the New Republic, Canadian anti-Americanism may be broad -- a 2003 SES Canada Research poll showed only 13% of Canadians wanting Canada to be more like the U.S.; a 2004 Ipsos-Reid poll found that 82% believe that President Bush is not a friend of Canada -- it isn't deep. An SES/Buffalo University poll in 2005 showed that a majority of Canadians want closer relations with the U.S. on security, antiterrorism, and energy policy. Canadians don't want to be Americans, but they do want to be American allies. The Grits have made this tough over the years, with periodic anti-Bush and anti-American outbursts from the back and front benches.

 

The Tories won't have that problem. Though Harper has made pains to distance himself from the perception of excessive deference to Washington, even writing to the Washington Times to dispute an op-ed characterizing him as "Mr. Bush's new best friend internationally," the fact is that he'll be the most pro-American Canadian Prime Minister in a long time. He may not send Canadian troops to Iraq, but he has praised the U.S. for pursuing democracy there and would stand with the U.S. (and Israel) in international disputes where his predecessors would stand against us. In a dangerous world, the good guys are about to gain another strong leader. And that's bad news for the bad guys.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

...and you are - pushing your luck?

[Guest guest]

After the 2004 election, so many American liberals came down with depression that medical professionals coined a new phrase for their unhinged condition: post-election selection trauma (or PEST).

 

One wonders what malady Canadian liberals will contract after they lose at the polls in today's election. Meddling Michael Moore is already in the throes of despair.

 

Reuters reports:

 

A Canadian electorate that appears to have tired of more than a decade of Liberal rule was heading to the polls on Monday, seemingly ready to hand a limited mandate to the Conservatives.

 

It was a rematch of the 2004 election, a neck-and-neck race that ended up giving Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin a minority government, but this time Conservative leader Stephen Harper has built a much more substantial lead of six to 12 percentage points.

 

Martin's government was toppled in November over kickbacks from government contracts but rather than spending most of his time on that issue, Harper methodically laid out a policy a day during a campaign that ended up dispelling some of the doubts voters had about him in 2004.

 

"I felt almost from Day One that we were doing what we wanted to do, getting our message out, and the surprise for me from early on was that the Liberals didn't seem to be doing that," Harper told reporters on his plane on Sunday, the final day of the campaign, as he flew to British Columbia.

 

And the Ottawa Sun adds:

 

Liberal volunteers, organizers and even MPs are admitting certain defeat tomorrow night at the hands of Stephen Harper's Conservatives barring an 11th hour change of heart by Canadian voters.

 

As Grit troops fan across Canada in a last-ditch effort to turn the tide, they're weighed down by the latest polls that show the Conservatives remain in the lead and have gained substantial ground in Quebec.

 

Most Grits publicly insist there's still a chance their leader Paul Martin will "pull a rabbit out of the hat" and bring home a second Liberal minority government, but privately they admit that they've lost faith.

 

"I wish we were going to win but we are going to lose," said a long-time Liberal organizer working in Toronto who has booked a vacation to a sun destination next week to boost his spirits.

 

"I wish we could pick up just enough seats to pull it off."

 

When asked when he threw in the towel, the veteran Grit said "when we had no time left to rebound in the polls."

 

John Tabin predicts:

 

It's possible, though not likely, that the Conservatives will win an outright majority in .. But even if they don't, and need to form a coalition government, they will have more of a chance to move an agenda than one would expect. As a political consultant explained to me in Washington a few months ago before heading north to work for the Conservatives, the leaders of the Tories' prospective coalition partner, the separatist Bloc Quebecois, are willing to give Harper several years of rule (but expect lots of Tory reforms to exempt Quebec). The Conservative victory will be a real one, and not just for Harper and his party but for Canada, for North America, and for the world.

 

As Tabin points out, the revolution is taking place with thanks to American blogger Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters, who single-handedly helped blow the lid off the Canadian liberals' culture of corruption.

 

All eyes will be on the Canadian blogosphere today as election events unfold.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Who are you? Some gun lovin evangelical...?

 

Oh and are you even a Canadian?

[Guest guest]

Cannuckistan, because he has clearly broken the law according to the Canada Elections Act, which states, in part:

 

331. No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is

 

(a) a Canadian citizen; or

 

(b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

 

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

...with that - let's go and collect so many U.S. based right-wingers - who interfere in our elections MORE DIRECTLY - such as - Ralph Reed and his kind of crew...?

 

...<big>Ralph Reed, the former head of the influential Christian Coalition who has worked on seven U.S. presidential campaigns, spoke during the Canadian Values Conference, staged by the nascent Institute for Canadian Values at Canada Christian College in Toronto Nov. 29 – Dec. 1. Reed served as a senior adviser to the Bush campaign in 2000 and as the president’s southeast campaign chair in 2004. Greeted with a standing ovation, he told the crowd in Toronto that the recipe for social conservative success in the political sphere is not “rocket science” and emphasized two simple planks in the process – a commitment to unabashed social conservatism and grassroots activism...He concluded by giving social conservative Canadians a four-point action plan as they go into the campaign for the federal election Jan. 23: build a strong grassroots organization that will touch every single voter; train workers to be effective; set achievable goals and constantly monitor them; and turn out the vote on election day by “flushing” people out of their homes and driving them to polling stations, if necessary...</big>.

 

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121610.html

 

There you have it - direct interference - would those comments construe a violation of the Canada Elections Act? /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Guest guest]

[Guest guest]

Canada's conservative victory here, while perhaps not as large as desired, is worth celebrating...as well as remembering that it closely parallels what we've seen around the world.

 

Supporters of the Iraq War such as President Bush, PM Koizumi of Japan, PM Blair of the UK, PM Howard of Australia, Poland's President, et al have won resounding election victories after our 2003 jailing of Saddam Hussein.

 

In contrast, opponents to the war such as Germany's Schroeder, Iraq's Hussein, and Canada's Martin are now out of power. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

Soon France's Chirac will likewise be out of power, too. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

Thus, the left-wing lie that the Iraq War is unpopular continues to be contradicted by global facts on the ground. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

The fact is Mr. Moore is right about the Iraq war - you may post nasty pics but that doesn't change the facts...

[Guest guest]

[Guest guest]

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Ignorant and personally rude pictures like this - win no points - Mr. Moore is interested in rights - what about you - how do you 'weigh in' on the injustice I am living - what do you think I should do to get my rights back?

 

[Guest guest]

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

 

Look into His eyes - what do you feel?

[Guest guest]

I see ecstacy!

[Guest guest]

In yesterday’s Canadian election, the new Conservative Party swept into power for the first time since 1993. Paul Martin and the Liberals, it turns out, were unsuccessful in their campaign to demonize -- yet again -- Canadian conservatives.

 

But what does it mean to be a Canadian conservative? Is it the same as being an American conservative? Do the same markers apply, such as one’s stance on abortion or gay marriage, lower taxes, free trade and smaller government, a strong military and vigilant national defense?

 

To a certain extent, yes. In many ways, Canadian society has historically been more conservative and less radicalized than the United States. For example, whereas abortion was legalized in the U.S. in 1973 under Roe v. Wade, abortion remained illegal in Canada. That law was finally deemed unconstitutional in a key Canadian Supreme Court case regarding abortion in 1988.

 

In the United States, the place of religion within the public schools is a source of much debate due to the "separation of church and state." But the province of Ontario, for instance, funds a separate, Catholic, school board in accord with the Canadian Constitution. In addition, public school prayer, which was effectively banned in the early 1960s in the U.S. remained alive in Ontario until 1988.

 

Nevertheless, Canada today is more liberal (in the American sense) than the United States: with no laws regulating abortion, legal same-sex marriage, no death penalty, high income taxes and a federal sales tax, a financially-strapped military and a deep reverence for the United Nations.

 

But the problem with defining Canadian conservatism exclusively in the above terms is that it overlooks the fundamental issue plaguing Canada since the 1960s: the separation movement in the French-speaking province of Quebec.

 

How to deal with the "Quebec question" does not easily fit into the usual left/right framework. Nor does it have much to say about relations with the U.S. or foreign policy in general, the primary avenue by which Americans are exposed to Canadian policies. Yet, a distinctly liberal and conservative stance toward Quebec has emerged, the recognition of which has benefited the Conservative Party, under leader Stephen Harper.

 

The traditional liberal response to Quebec separatism was a call for greater centralization of power. There is no better example of this than the fetishism of socialized medicine. More than a mere health care system, socialized medicine acts as a symbol of Canadian unity and food for identity-starved Canadians. Policy choices -- socialized medicine or not -- soon morph into the "Canadian values" espoused by the Liberal Party -- to be contrasted with the "American" values of their political opponents, the Conservatives. This is why the Liberal Party has run so many ads this election campaign using anti-American rhetoric: Liberal nationalism depends on it.

 

But Conservatives see this as a big mistake. Instead, the reason for Quebec’s continued disaffection is federal meddling in its affairs, a sentiment shared to a lesser extent by other provinces, such as Alberta. The Conservative response is a policy of "open federalism." In this arrangement, the federal government will respect the constitutional limits of its power (health care and education are both under provincial jurisdiction) and strengthen its own areas of responsibility such as national defense, foreign affairs and trade.

 

In this way, provincial autonomy, not liberal paternalism, lies at the base of a strong, united Canada.

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

You've never seen this picture look like this before - that is my nice color work - not bad for a lousy 'artist'?

 

YS,

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

Quote:

 

unsuccessful in their campaign

 

Reply:

 

They gave up too easy and worse - they made abortion and gay marriage too much 'the' issues.

 

They didn't demonize Mr. Harper - Mr. Harper has done that to himself with so many comments that leave one wondering about the focus of his program.

 

So there!

 

YS,

 

don

 

[gHari 0]

... but those conservatives when they took over Ontario immediately cut the money to every person on welfare. Sure, like they have any idea what it is like to live on welfare with no life just rice. Such insensitive dogs should never govern anyone, even themselves. I don't begrudge the unfortunate on welfare. Quite frankly, if we didn't pay them to be poor, we'd have to give them some of what we got. So the rich idiots should think it through and stop complaining.

 

If they try to take away the common man's health care, then I will personally ensure that they are ousted and never rise to their fascist posts again.

 

Not that I give a damn about politics one way or the other.

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

I agree - conservatives are as you've described - I know all about Mike Harris...

[Guest guest]

"I will personally ensure that they are ousted and never rise to their fascist posts again."

 

 

 

 

You're a legend in your own mind, dude!

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

I did a search and found this old editorial caricature - from the WWI era:

 

 

So it is interesting how everyone is in the same mode - maybe they're at odds - but they're in the same mode of nature - nontheless.

 

For example - here is what we posted to the internet - before the vote of non-confidence that resulted in the noted conservative win at the recent federal poll:

 

Jack Layton claims that the NDP have 'lost confidence' in the Liberals – but again – he thus thinks that the conservatives shall not lose NDP confidence much quicker?

 

Is left-leaning Jack Layton incompetent to understand what dealing with right-leaning Steven Harper is really going to be like - when he apparently cannot deal with the center-standing Paul Martin?

 

Or is Mr. Layton really hoping for a conservative majority - so that his NDP party will not have to prop-up a ‘conservative minority’ government?

 

So we also noted during the leaders debate that when Jack Layton was asked whom he prefers dealing with - Mr. Martin or Mr. Harper - Jack didn't answer the question!

Instead Jack deflected the issue and badgered Mr. Martin for ‘other’ so-called answers - when he knew the rules of the debate stated no questions or discussion between the leaders directly!

Why didn't he answer the question? Clearly - he failed to answer - due to the fact that he's supported Mr. Harper for some time and - he knew that his voting public might have an ill reaction to actually hearing ‘that’ answer.

 

Some how Jack wasn't telling his supporters something we've said all along - the left-wing NDP party would indeed prop-up a right-wing minority.

 

In this following news quote it is noted that Layton dismissed any notion of working with the conservatives - in the final days of the campaign:

 

Jack Layton meets with his 28 other New Democrat members this week to see whether they can work with the Conservatives, who were vilified by the NDP leader in the election campaign as completely out of step with basic Canadian values..."I am going to make a legitimate, determined effort to find things where there can be common action," he said in an interview with The Canadian Press...In the dying days of the campaign, Layton dismissed any notion of co-operation with the Conservatives, saying it would take a major research project to identify the similarities between the parties.

 

He steadfastly refused to answer any questions about how he might work with a Stephen Harper administration.

 

But with the reality of a Conservative minority government on Feb. 6, and with no appetite among Canadians for another election soon, pragmatism is setting in.

 

Even though the NDP's 29 members are not quite enough to give the Tories the votes for a majority in the Commons, they still could be crucial in building support for key legislation...

 

http://news./s/cpress/20060128/ca_pr_on_na/ndp_co_operation

 

So there it is - just as I said it would be - so how far down the road does Jack go? We can be pleased that the NDP vote ain't enough to get the conservatives through the house votes - they are going to need help from the Bloc and I doubt that is going to happen now - Mr. Duceppe is going to want to go to the polls sooner than the right and the left will - they want those seats back - so this is the 'mixed' situation.

 

When are all the leaders going to get a real clue already?

 

Haven't all the 'big big' players figured out that they have created an situation that is going to cheat them too?

 

Competition and conflict - it goes on within each group and between all groups - this is the seemingly endless karmic loop...

 

Step forward out of the shadows of these two issues and we can save the earth - venture deeper into those shadows and there is no hope for us - this is the question for each of us - no matter 'where' we are!

 

 

 

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean 0]

[Guest guest]

QUEBEC CITY -- Remember the conventional wisdom of 2004? Back then, you'll recall, it was the many members of George Bush's "unilateral" coalition who were supposed to be in trouble, not least the three doughty warriors of the Anglosphere -- the president, Tony Blair and John Howard -- who would all be paying a terrible electoral price for lying their way into war in Iraq. The Democrats' position was that Mr. Bush's rinky-dink nickel-&-dime allies didn't count: The president has "alienated almost everyone," said Jimmy Carter, "and now we have just a handful of little tiny countries supposedly helping us in Iraq." (That would be Britain, Australia, Poland, Japan . . .) Instead of those nobodies, John Kerry pledged that, under his leadership, "America will rejoin the community of nations" -- by which he meant Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schröder, the Belgian guy . . .

 

Two years on, Messrs. Bush, Blair, Howard and Koizumi are all re-elected, while Mr. Chirac is the lamest of lame ducks, and his ingrate citizenry have tossed out his big legacy, the European Constitution; Mr. Schröder's government was defeated and he's now shilling for Russia's state-owned Gazprom ("It's all about Gaz!"); and the latest member of the coalition of the unwilling to hit the skids is Canada's Liberal Party, which fell from office on Monday. John Kerry may have wanted to "rejoin the community of nations." Instead, "the community of nations" has joined John Kerry, windsurfing off Nantucket in electric-yellow buttock-hugging Lycra, or whatever he's doing these days.

* * *

 

It would be a stretch to argue that Mr. Chirac, Mr. Schröder and now Paul Martin in Ottawa ran into trouble because of their anti-Americanism. Au contraire, cheap demonization of the Great Satan is almost as popular in the streets of Toronto as in the streets of Islamabad. But these days anti-Americanism is the first refuge of the scoundrel, and it's usually a reliable indicator that you're not up to the challenges of the modern world or of your own country. In the final two weeks of the Canadian election, Mr. Martin's Liberals unleashed a barrage of anti-Conservative attack ads whose ferocity was matched only by their stupidity: They warned that Stephen Harper, the Conservatives' leader, would be "George Bush's new best friend"! They dug up damaging quotes from a shocking 1997 speech in which he'd praised America as "a light and inspiration"! Another week and they'd have had pictures from that summer in the late '80s he spent as Dick Cheney's pool boy.

 

Mr. Harper, the incoming prime minister, will not be "George Bush's new best friend" -- that's a more competitive field than John Kerry and Jimmy Carter think. But at the very least a Harper government won't rely on reflexive anti-Americanism as the defining element of Canadian identity. No cheery right-wingers south of the border should exaggerate what happened on Monday. It was an act of political hygiene: The Liberal Party was mired in a swamp of scandals, the most surreal of which was a racket to shore up the anti-separatist cause in Quebec by handing out millions of free Canadian flags, a project which so overburdened the domestic flag industry the project had to be outsourced to overseas companies, who at a cost of $45 each sent back a gazillion flags that can't fly. That's to say, they had no eyelets, no sleeve, no halyard line for your rope and toggle and whatnot. You have to lean a ladder up against the pole and nail it into position, which on a January morning at Lac St-Jean hardly seems likely to endear nationalist Quebecers to the virtues of the Canadian state. Millions of dollars were transferred to "advertising agencies" and "consultancies" run by the party's pals and in return they came up with a quintessentially Liberal wheeze: Even if you wanted to salute it, you can't run it up the flagpole. As a forlorn emblem of Trudeaupian nationalism, that's hard to beat.

 

And yet and yet . . . in throwing the bums out, Canadian voters declined to subject them to full-scale humiliation. Even with viable alternatives for all tastes -- conservative, socialist and Quebec separatist -- it seems one can never underestimate the appeal of a party of floundering discredited kleptocrat incompetents led by a vindictive empty suit who fought one of the most inept campaigns in modern political history. They clung on to over 100 seats and the votes of Canada's three biggest cities. Truly, the Liberals are one of the most amazingly resilient parties this side of Kim Jong-Il's.

 

Stephen Harper has to live with that political reality, but, as he's done with his party, he'll move the country incrementally. On the environment, his views are compatible with Mr. Bush, John Howard and now Tony Blair: That's to say, if "climate change" is a problem, Kyoto's not the answer to it. On missile defense, the Conservatives will string along with Washington because it's the easy option and we'll be covered by it anyway: Even Canadians aren't prepared to argue that, if there's something headed toward Winnipeg or Montreal, we'd rather the Americans minded their own bloody business and didn't tell us about it. But it's a good gauge of the deterioration in U.S.-Canadian relations that a quintessential piece of postmodern, humbug multilateralism -- an issue that required Canada to be minimally supportive without being helpful, at no political cost and in return for some lucrative contracts for northern defense contractors -- was whooped up by the Liberals into a big scare about Washington's plans for the "weaponization of space." On missile defense, Mr. Harper will be more down to earth in every sense.

 

But will there be Canadian troops in Iraq or wherever's next? No, not in any meaningful sense. The sad fact is, even if we'd wanted to liberate Baghdad, we have an emaciated military worn to the bone. But it goes beyond the lack of equipment and lack of transport that now afflict what was, 60 years ago, the world's fourth largest military. In April 2002, the Pentagon wished to confer the Bronze Star on five snipers from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in Afghanistan for their service in . . . killing the enemy. Ottawa put the request on hold, relenting grudgingly only after the matter was made public. It seems the Canadian government's main objection was a reluctance to let it be known that our military still, er, shoots people, and extremely accurately. The backs of our five-dollar bills celebrate the armed forces, but they're all unarmed -- peacekeepers, elderly veterans, etc.

 

Like much of the European Union, we're so heavily invested in the idea that we've found a kinder gentler way we can scarce bear to contemplate the reality. At the Washington state/British Columbia border this week, two guys on the lam were hightailing it through Blaine heading for the 49th parallel with the cops in hot pursuit. Alerted to what was coming their way, Canada's (unarmed) border guards walked off the job. For a country whose national anthem lyrics are mostly endless reprises of the line "we stand on guard for thee," we could at least stand on guard. A few years back, I was chatting with a border guard at the Derby Line, Vt./Rock Island, Quebec crossing. A beat-up sedan came hurtling northward and we jumped out of the way. She sounded a klaxon. By then the driver was halfway up the Trans-Quebecoise autoroute and, if he ever heard her stern warning, he declined to brake and reverse back to the post to show his papers. "Oh, well," she said to me, "it's probably nothing."

 

Canadians have been reluctant in the last four years to accept that we no longer live in an "it's probably nothing" world. Many Continentals feel the same way. Unlike his hollow predecessor, Stephen Harper is a thoughtful man who understands the gulf between self-mythologizing and the harder realities. You can't change a free country unless you persuade free people to change their minds, and he will at least start that tough job. He doesn't have to be George Bush's best friend, and he may even be more effective at opposing him on trade and agriculture disputes. But he could try being Tony Blair's and John Howard's best friend and reconnecting us with other traditional pals from whom Canada's become increasingly estranged. He could honor our small but brave contribution to Afghanistan by flying out and meeting them on the ground. But, even if he does nothing else, he'll bring to an end a decade of self-defeating sneering. The ayatollahs at least flatter America as a seducer -- the Great Satan -- which is a more accurate and sophisticated construct than deriding her as the Great Moron. The difference between sniping at the Taliban and sniping at Washington is that in the latter case we're firing blanks.