Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« More on the Senate appointments | Main | Mom and Apple Pie »

Saturday, March 26, 2005

No, not "Paul who", "*Joe* Who"

Recently, the U.S. paleoconservative website VDare posted some criticism of Mexican President Vicente Fox, following a recent summit with President Bush in Texas, here:

http://www.vdare.com/bevens/050323_summit.htm

What's of passing interest to us, however, is the writer's introduction to her piece:

"....Along with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin (whoever he is), Fox and President Bush have just concluded yet another summit meeting..."

She's probably just being snarky. Offhand, though, I wonder what would be worse for a country--having a leader that would annoy a paleocon writer, or having a  leader that isn't even worth thinking about.

Posted by Rick Hiebert on March 26, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8343e778553ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No, not "Paul who", "*Joe* Who":

Comments

She's not being snarky. It says at the bottom she's a Californian, and Mexican affairs are far more important to that state than Canadian/Albertan beef or softwood lumber.

To put it simply, President Fox is much more important to President Bush than CEO Paul Millionaire of Canada.

Governor Klein should have been there too - to defend Alberta's interests separate from the Rich Ontarian. We simply cannot trust the Ontario people to handle our affairs fairly.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-03-26 1:24:39 PM


COMMENT DELETED: NO PERSONAL ATTACKS PERMITTED

Posted by: nazz jones | 2005-03-26 1:40:42 PM


Let me get this straight--when canadians insult americans its because of our latent insecurity and virulent aunty americanism. But when americans insult canadians its because they're probably busy with other more important stuff so let's not call 'em on it? Is that sort of the paradigm?

Listen, don't get me wrong--when Parrish et al get going with the 'bastards' and 'morons' I want to plaster over their mouths, but I'm getting pretty tired of the trope about, well I guess we do deserve every crummy thing any American ever says, cause we disagreed with them once.

Are we in danger of confusing being anti-anti-americanism with anti-canadianism? Can't we be pro-canada, full stop?

Posted by: cynical joe | 2005-03-27 4:17:52 AM


"Can't we be pro-canada, full stop?"

No. The bigots of Canada can go to hell. Alberta has to save itself from your hate. We don't need you.

Alberta must be pro-America because America has always been pro-Alberta. They've been pro-Canada for the longest time, but the rich people in Tronna can't see beyond their stacks of money.

Soon we will be a state, and free from Canadian racism and decadence. Our people will be safe from their enemies - in peace, prosperity, tolerance and freedom at last. Screw you, Canada.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-03-27 6:04:02 AM


Just because an American has no idea who our PM is doesn't mean they are anti-Canadian. It means that we don't rate high on their importance level. Calling them anti-Canadian would be like calling someone anti-New Zealand for not knowing the name of their PM.

Posted by: ld | 2005-03-28 10:20:07 AM


Mr. Hiebert, with all due respect, misses the point. Bevens contempt is directed at Martin's Liberals and Harper's CPC (Liberals in a hurray) embracing of open borders and support for unbounded immigration.

Sailer's strategy, analyzed by KMG vis-a-vis Canada, is that Republican strength in the US comes from mobilsing the white vote. KMG suggests Harper is missing the boat regarding the immigration issue. As non-European immigration advances ineluctably, it will only serve to ensure Liberal dominance. The Vismins, according to Polyscopique, favour Liberals 70% of the time. Growing populations in Montreal, the GTA and Vancouver are continued assurance of Liberal dominance even if Quebec supports the Bloc. Immigration is an issue gaining traction in Quebec however the CPC are too afraid of race to grasp its potential.

The National Question, Grace refers to, is "Will American (or Canadians)someday reach a point where race and ethnicity will be politically irrelevant? When voters simply vote on the issues, regardless of the candidate’s background?" Race based solidarity in voting patterns has been entrenched in Quebec for at least the last century and its appeasement over the last century as ensured Liberal dominance. Race based solidarity is encouraged by the Liberals because it ensures electoral ascendancy. As one of Disraeli's characters confidently proclaimed, "Race is all." Politically irrelevant? Don't thinks so.

Posted by: DJ | 2005-03-28 10:40:45 AM


Scott and Ida are right. While I am sure that American states adjacent to the Canadian border have great familiarity with Canada, the same cannot be said for states in the South and Southwest.

You have to appreciate that Canada is roughly the size (population-wise) of one of America's larger states. And as we have 50 states, we have our hands full. Although Canada has great familiarity with the US, to the people in my part of America, Canada really is a "foreign country." People from the Southwest rarely enjoy an opportunity to visit Canada. In the last 3 or 4 years I have had one 5-minute conversation with someone I knew to be Canadian.

Because of the Shotgun, 'small dead animals' and other Canadian blogs, I now know more about Canada than I do about Connecticut, Rhode Island, Nebraska and many other American states. I certainly don't know who the governors are in most of our states.

Basically, while people down here know little about Canada, they have always had an affection for the Canadian people. Regrettably, Canadian anti-Americanism is gradually exerting a change in this area.

Despite a lack of familiarity from our point of view there is a growing awareness of Alberta. It's not impossible that someday we might know more about Alberta in Texas than we know about Canada generally. After all, Texas was once an independent country on its own that decided to join the United States.

All of the states along the Mexican border are deeply involved in a difficult situation concerning illegal aliens, Mexican labor, and narco-trafficking that piggy-backs on these problems for its own purpose. Naturally, nothing galvanizes attention like a big problem that needs to be attended to, and so because of that and proximity, we spend a lot more time thinking about our neighbor to the south.

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-03-28 11:21:57 AM


In reply to Greg Outside Dallas, Michlle Malkin has a new blog just on immigration problems, and the focus is that Mexican-US border.

http://www.michellemalkin.com/immigration/

It's an enormous problem. A huge population of illegal workers, not paying taxes yet using services and in this day and age of global terrorism, totally anonymous and untraceable. Canadians, as usual, know little about this problem.

I'd like to say, Greg, that the virulent anti-Americanism, which is tantamount to racism, of Joe Green on this blog, is not representative of Canadians. Ignore him. Yes, we do have a lot of ignorant anti-Americanism in Canada - it's the Sixties Mindset sophistry of the socialist left, which rejects individualism and entrepreneurship and focuses on collective subservience.

Remember, Canada is trapped in a welfare state, a socialist political infrastructure. This sophistry always views itself as Wise, Benign and Superior and can only do so by viewing someone else as Stupid, Evil and Inferior. So, we have a lot of that binarism, particularly on academic campuses and the gov't dominated media systems.

But, if you take a look at the increasing number of blogs in Canada, and, I'm pleased to see, the blogs created by young people, then, you'll see that there is a strong level of support for the USA. That includes respect for its actions in the Middle East, its promotion of democracy in the Middle East and its courage in these areas.

No-one has the right to, nor even can, take away the triumph of those elections in Afghanistan and Iraq from those people...and these elections were enabled by the US.
Democracy doesn't appear overnight. It took the West 400 years to move from a tribal feudalism to a democratic system. It isn't easy to move from the safe haven of a collectivist mode of governance to one requiring individual decisions.

When a people have been ruled by a tribal infrastructure, which rejects 'power of the people', then, switching to a democracy where they have the power and duty to think, debate and make decisions, is not something done overnight and is not something done without stress. But, the FACT that this infrastructure was set up, by the actions of the US (and the coalition: Britain, Australia, Japan, Poland, etc)..is something which should not be forgotten.

So, Greg, there are a LOT of Canadians who don't follow the political expediency of the government in Canada, which is using the 'We are not Americans' tactic as a red herring to divert people from finding out just how serious the democractic deficit is - in Canada.

Posted by: ET | 2005-03-28 11:49:09 AM


ET has it wrong. Feudalism in Europe arose as the result of a decline in tribalism due to Christianization and a general weakening of one's loyalty to the state,with the fall of the Roman Empire. It was a vast network of mutually beneficial relationships based almost entirely on personal loyalty and service. ET's tribalism or the rise of the nation-state marked the end of feudalism and the beginning of the Renaissance. Of course ET like all the universalist, conveniently overlook this vital period of Western Christian development. They also overlook the democratic experience in ancient Greece, a source of Renaissance ideas. Conflating the 'dark ages' of European history with 'dark ages' of Islam is convenient for univeralists like ET. If Europeans can move from the darkness to enlightment then so can Islam because after all European history is no different than that in the ME. It won't work. There are no Institional sign posts in the Muslim world. Afghanistan is a feudal state. Warlords, like in 9th century Europe, demand fidelity and service (protection money) and in return the Afghani farmers get security to grow their heroin and feed their families.

It will be interesting to see if the Yanks et al stay in the 'Stan and Iraq for four centuries, the time prescribed by ET to bring democracy to the West.

Posted by: DJ | 2005-03-28 2:44:02 PM


What I wanna know is why anyone would give a rat's ass about the opinion of someone who writes for a borderline racist site like vdare?

http://tinyurl.com/5mdon

Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-03-28 4:00:22 PM


I don't know, if ET is wrong, the people of Iraq don't think so:

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/03/good-news-from-iraq-part-24.html

Posted by: rob | 2005-03-28 6:23:02 PM


She's white and opposes immigration; the majority of immigrants are non-white, so if you oppose immigration you're a racist. If you're concerned about importing crime, hispanics are almost four times as likely as whites and blacks 9 times as likely to commit a crime, you're a racist. If you criticize increased welfare, lower wages, increased property crime and destruction, all related to immigration, then you're a racist. If you are white and incarcerated and don't particularly like getting f....d up the ass by blacks or hispanics, you're a racist. If you're a teenage white girl in Holland, Sweden, Norway or Australia and don't like getting raped by Muslim immigrant gangs, you're a racist. If you're a French Jew just attacked by immigrant Muslim gangs, and complain you must be a racist.

If you are a concerned American citizen exercising your constitutional right to assemble peacefully in order to bring attention to the ever increasing illegal immigration into that country, deemed a vigilante by your president, and singled out out by SPLC as white supremacists, then your a racist.

The question then becomes why anyone would give a rat's ass about what Mr. Hermit thinks?

Posted by: DJ | 2005-03-28 7:01:35 PM


According to a Zogby poll, Iraqis would most like their government to emulate the United Arab Emirates. It appears Chrenkoff forgot that little bit of 'good' news.

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=965

The U.A.E. is a dictatorship.

Posted by: DJ | 2005-03-28 7:30:33 PM


Hmmm .. 805 respondants BEFORE the election. Me thinks you should wait for another pole before formulating a final assesment.

Posted by: rob | 2005-03-28 7:45:27 PM


good work keep it up

Posted by: otieno michael odhiambo | 2008-05-24 4:02:44 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.