OT: This post responds in a discussion of Canadian-American relations as
mentioned by John Macnab.

John Macnab wrote in message . ca...
(Nick) wrote in message . com...
Speaking of "offensive speech" and a magazine's editorial standards, you
might be interested in the right-wing American magazine, "National Review",
issue of 25 November 2002. The cover reads, "Wimps!", across a photograph
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with a subtitle of "Jonah Goldberg on
Canada's whiny and weak anti-Americanism". Goldberg's article is called,
"Bomb Canada: The Case for War".

http://www.nationalreview.com/preview/preview112502.asp

Hee hee. The beauty of this kind of journalism is that very few people care.

Dear Mr. Macnab,

Many more Americans than Canadians seem to care about "this kind of
journalism".

"Talk radio is a great deal more popular--and powerful--than most of us
realize. Twenty-two percent of all Americans surveyed say they listen.
In some major cities, the number is as high as 40 percent. Conservative
domination of the talk-radio airwaves is so extensive as to be undisputed,
even by the usual suspects. There's not a single well-known liberal talk-show
host in the nation and barely a host who does not learn well in the direction
of the extreme right. The most popular shows are hosted by Rush Limbaugh,
(snipped the list of 18 more names). Every single one is a movement
conservative with politics located at the extreme far-right end of the
political spectrum....

Edward Monks, a Eugene, Oregon, attorney calculates that in is city,
conservatives enjoy a 4000-to-zero hour advantage over liberals on the radio.
He wrote in 'The Register-Guard': 'Political opinions expressed on talk radio
are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only
in a totalitarian society....There is nothing fair, balanced, or democratic
about it.' Monk noted that as recently as 1974, such domination would have
been not only inconceivable, but illegal. Back then, the Federal Communications
Commission was still demanding 'strict adherence to the (1949) Fairness
Doctrine as the single most important requirement of operation in the public
interest--the sine qua non for grant for renewal of license'. This view was
ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 when it reaffirmed the people's
right to a free exchange of opposing views, with roughly equal time given to
all sides, if demanded, on the public airwaves. The doctrine was overturned
by the Reagan-appointed FCC in 1987....President Reagan vetoed attempts by
Congress to reinstate the doctrine, and the net result has been the complete
far-right domination of the nation's airwaves, owing entirely to what analysts
call 'marketplace realities'.

The amazing career of Rush Limbaugh owes a great deal to that moment in
history. It is testament to just how well success succeeds in the U.S. media,
regardless of accuracy, fairness, or even common sense. Limbaugh's legendary
lies and mythological meanderings have been rewarded not only with legions of
listeners, but also with incredible riches--a contract said to be worth
$250 million over seven years. It has also won him the respect of the media
establishment. Limbaugh, for instance, has been treated to laudatory coverage
in 'Time' and 'Newsweek'...And yet Limbaugh is, to put it bluntly, *deranged*.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has published an entire book of Rushisms
that have turned out to be false, unsubstantiated, or just plain wacko....

Still, Limbaugh can have a real impact on issues, irrespective of the
crackpot notions that inform his views. When, in June 2002, the Bush
Administration gave up its Sisyphean battle to deny the reality of global
warming--a fact of life accepted by the entire panoply of world government
as well as virtually every climatologist of note in all of these nations
Rush was aghast. He knew better....But Rush was not fooled. Bush and
company had, for reasons, he did not explain, caved into 'the environmentalist
wacko coalition'....Within twenty-four hours the White House retreated,
retracting the president's admission that global warming was, in fact, real....

Listening to Limbaugh, the idea that he enjoys genuine power in the political
life of the nation leaves you shaking your head in awe and amazement. But
it is impossible to ignore. Limbaugh's radio audience is the largest any
program on the medium has enjoyed since the advent of television. President
George H.W. Bush invited him for a White House sleepover, as well as to be
his honored guest at his State of the Union address, seated next to Barbara
Bush, in a demonstration of fealty and respect."

--Eric Alterman (What Liberal Media?, 2003, pp. 70-4)

Canada tends to be rather overlooked by the United States media.

"I have suggested that one of the best ways to specify and distinguish
American traits is by contrast with Canada. There is a considerable
comparative North American literature, written almost entirely by Canadians.
They have a great advantage over Americans since, while very few of the
latter study their northern neighbor, it is impossible to be a literate
Canadian without knowing almost as much, if not more, as most Americans
about the United States."
--Seymour Martin Lipset (American Exceptionalism, p. 34)
(Lipset is a self-described "proud American" scholar.)

"Practically all of the American and British literature dealing with counter-
insurgency and counter-terrorism ignores the fact that Canada was probably
the only NATO country which disrupted and destroyed a cell-based revolutionary
terrorist movement before it could cause serious damage to the polity.
Canadian planners believed that the FLQ (Front de Liberation du Quebec) and
its related support structures were progressing through a four-step
revolutionary programme that would progress from political mobilization to
open armed conflict. Canada's strategy was to disrupt the transition from
urban terrorism to small-unit operations in the hinterlands. The sudden
mass deployment of the armed forces in 1970 to support intelligence and
police operations in Quebec administered the coup de grace to a revolutionary
effort which started in 1963.

In addition to carrying out an ambitious seven-year bombing campaign,
kidnapping a British diplomat and murdering a Cabinet minister, the FLQ
infiltrated the Militia to get training and stole vast numbers of military
weapons including anti-tank weapons and assault rifles. An FLQ attack
against the nuclear weapons facility at CFS Lamacaza was disrupted before
it could be executed. Some FLQ members were, in fact, trained in Algeria
by the FLN, and de Gaulle gave public moral support to that enterprise."

--Sean Maloney (Cold War Hot, edited by Peter Tsouras, pp. 144-5)

Here's a novel that might be of interest:
"Killing Ground: the Canadian Civil War" by Bruce Powe (aka Ellis Portal)
(1968, Toronto: Peter Martin Associates)

Perhaps my favourite Canada-US relations story goes back a few years. A
nutty American pastor, Rev Fred Phelps became so outraged by a Canadian
court decision granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, that he
came to Ottawa to burn the Maple Leaf--what Phelps called the "Fag Flag"
on parliament hill. Rev Phelps did not seem to understand that such an
act is not particularly outrageous or offensive to most Canadians.

Recently, Don Mihokovich created the off-topic thread, "Core Values", on
account of his perception that Noah Roberts had disrespected the United
States flag. You might have noticed how fiercely (including a threat of
physical violence) some Americans have been fighting in that thread.

Either the police or the fire marshall, I forget which, met with Phelps
to give him tips on which fire accelerants would be best to use to
ensure the safety of the Reverand and all bystanders. He burned the
flag, the newspapers had a good laugh at his expense, and he and his
small band of followers went home.

I don't display any flags; I don't burn any flags.
I hardly take notice whenever someone else displays a flag or burns one.

Ah, low fences make for fun neighbours!

The United States has higher fences along its border with Mexico.
The American economy depends on a continuing supply of inexpensive Mexican
labour, including many illegal immigrants, but Mexicans have not always been
made welcome in the United States.

According to "Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s" by
Francisco Balderrama and Raymond Rodriguez, the United States summarily
(without due process of law) deported about one million persons of Mexican
heritage (*most of whom were U.S. citizens*, who should have been legally
protected from any deportations) to Mexico in order that more jobs might
become available for "real Americans". Many of the deported persons lost
their homes and properties in the United States without any compensation.
In some cases, severely ill Mexicans were forcibly removed from American
hospitals and dropped off across the border.

"Poor Mexico! So far from God, and so close to the United States."
--Porfirio Diaz (1830-1915)

--Nick