I'm unconvinced, Peter. I don't see that we have much choice but to protect Canada regardless of Ottawa's expressed wishes. Why shouldn't the government kowtow to the pacifist left, if it doesn't actually effect national security. Free riding is perfectly rational for the free rider.

If Quebec were to secede, the rest of Canada would have to come to grips with the reality that it is extremely similar to the US. When the US had its Westward Migration, it was not unusual for people to go to Montana and turn right, just as it was not unusual for people to ride the Canadian Pacific to Calgary and turn left. Intermarriage across the border in the Prairie Provinces is universal and Winnepeg is the municipal center for people in Fargo or Minot.

Maybe a unification of the US with the Prairie Provinces would compel the US to deal intelligently with real concerns about medical care and education. The mere fact that America is the best nation in the history of the world does not mean that it is the fount of all wisdom. People in Edmonton, Regina and Winnepeg certainly aren't stupid and have something to offer.

As for the rest of Canada, urban Ontario is its own private Idaho but the dynamic elsewhere in Ontario isn't all that different from the Prairie Provinces. And the Maritimes are very similar to Northern New England, right down to the food and the music.

If the Western part of BC were to remain independent, so much the better, especially if they took the western US from San Francisco to Seattle along with them.

--intelligently with real concerns about medical care and education.--

Yup, once they find out how bad the Canuck system really is, we can move forward.

Bart,
Canada can lead us to enlightnment on health care? I haven't seen any detailed info that would lead me to believe that I would be better off relying on Canadian health care, though I am aware of plenty of anecdotal tales that make me happy I am in the US. What am I missing?

Pat H-

It's free.

Tom,
And worth every penny.

As Heinlein said, "Anything free is either worthless, or turns out to cost twice as much in the long run."

The problem is not error, but madness.

David Warren, has referred to the syndrome, somewhat more charitably, as akin to being possessed.

One might wish to hope the derangement is temporary even if there are few grounds for optimism. For some people, groups, nations, I'm not sure what will have to occur so as to bring about the required excorcism. The more successful Bush's policy becomes (and let's hope the successes continue), the more vehemently it will be perceived as absolutely wrong (for all kinds of "sophisticated" reasons). So that at some stage---perhaps we're already there---any setback, up to and including nuclear attack on North America or elsewhere, will be seen as Bush's fault.

If 9/11 was not sufficient, one despairs over what it might take to shock the world into awareness. (Though, there are indeed not a few who continue to blame 9/11 on Bush and/or America and/or Israel.)

On a brighter note, though, more and more people do seem to be "getting it." And perhaps on an even brighter one, the ones who don't may prove to be---or will force themselves to be---irrevelant.

Although realizing just how irrelevant they are may bring them to decide they must become even more radicalized. So that yes, the unheard of---support for Kim, the mullahs, and the emerging neofascism in Russia---may well become the norm for larger swaths of the Liberal-Left.

In the last paragraph, I forgot to mention, "...and support for America's economic collapse (the justified outcome of American overreach)..."

In fact, many, expectantly, seem to see such collapse as imminent, as---like the messiah---practically around the corner.

(At least, one can always hope....)

Its nice to see that the Aspers, who own the Post, and who are 1.) Zionists, 2.) Liberal Party Stalwarts, and 3.) My Mother's neighbors in Florida, are begining to understand how rotten things are in Ottawa. Maybe they will lead the call for Western Canada to join the US.

Pat,

I'm not saying that they've answered the questions correctly, only that they have different answers some of which might be worth exploring. It is not as if Canadian health care, while not on the level that middle and upper middle income Americans are used to, is little more than going to the barber once a year for a good bleeding. Their preventitive care for ordinary folks is of a high standard.

Omigod, I'm defending Canada here, maybe it's the full moon.

And from the absurd to the sublime:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050225.wmiss0226/BNStory/National/

For G-d's sake, it's NOT free! You just pay for with taxes. Sheesh!

David:

But wouldn't free-loading (which I agree is rational, if demeaning) mean joining missile defence, rather than staying out? I've never heard anyone suggest Washington would be submitting large bills or that there were significant costs to Canada. Besides, this is not occurring against a backdrop of defence cuts. Quite the opposite.

Bart;

Are you feeling ok? Can we get you a couple of aspirins?

Sorry .

As irrelevant as we Canadians may be, we are not likely to invade the United States or sponsor anyone to do so in our behalf.

The U.S. should "buy" British Columbia (and pay for it by selling the immense tracts of crown land). Pay each B.C. resident US$1,000,000 to join the United States and then sell the crown land for twice what your "paid" for it.

The result is this: it destroys political parity in Canada and empowers Quebec forever unless Western Canada separates and joins the U.S. for "free". It creates a reason for Ontario to fight Quebec rather than blame all problems on the "nutty west".

And, best of all, it joins Alaska with the U.S. and you can build pipelines and access our offshore oil and natural gas be independent of the world for oil.

Nice idea Randall. How about we just take it, together with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the North-West Territories.

Be my guest, Robert.

Robert:

You do realize, I trust, that you are aiming at the heartland of Canadian socialism. Of approximately ten socialist provincial governments in Canadian history, all but one have been in the West.

But it's a weird parochial socialism like the Non-Partisan League in North Dakota or William Jennings Bryan, not a stab at an International Workers Movement. For that you need industrial proletariat or trendnoids looking for government approval for their deviance of choice.

Peter, if you call the federal Liberals anything but socialist, you are deceiving those who are not Canadians.

Yes, there is a big fight here in B.C. between the NDP (socialist) and whoever else (very, very free enterprise, currently the "Liberals"). But the average voter in B.C. is far to the right of the average voter in Ontario.

Randall:

On social issues, international relations, defence, etc. I agree. It is harder to make that case on economic issues.