For a while I thought that Canadians had nothing in common except the fact nobody there, with the exception of a boatload of hippies, was American. I whimiscally decided that, in order to be taken seriously, a country needs someone outside the country to hate it (besides the Quebecois)–and everybody was ignoring them. So I’ve been politely loathing Canada and things Canadian as my bit to help out Canadian sovereignty. Since every Canadian I met seemed to despise my country for being so violent, blah blah blah, I thought it a cry for attention and was willing to throw you lot a bone.

However, Grant McCracken undermines my efforts when he writes:

Plainly and simply, our neighbour needed us to close ranks, show solidarity, and present a single face to the dithering world community.

Er, no. If you’re really feeling indebted for those years of protection (which would assume we were doing this purely out of the kindness of our heart instead of needing a conveniently safe place to put the DEW Line), nothing says “thank you” like cash–maybe all that money you save on prescription drugs and not having any police since everyone up there is pure as the wind-driven snow, which I gather you have much experience with.

Seriously, just because we were determined to start a war on the thinnest of evidence doesn’t mean you’re less a friend (or a bratty younger brother) if you don’t follow us in. That’s like saying if Americans all started drinking heavily and going for a dip in the ocean, it would be Canada’s job to do the same to show solidarity to the world.

If you think it was right to go to war anyway because Saddam was a bad guy and for some reason was more important than all the other bad guys out there, fine. Criticize your government on that basis. But quite frankly it’s stupid to do it just because your ally has a yen. If that were so, how much shame would you put on the US (or, for that matter, yourselves) over the Suez crisis? I don’t hear anybody rushing to say Canada needed to put in troops in a land grab because you got a system of common laws from the UK and share a monarch.

If Canada were to say “Hey, we won’t go into Afghanistan because, well, thanks for the low, low prices on all the F-18s, but hey, we don’t want to become a target for the next 9/11, eh,” that would be ingratitude. That was the place to stand up and show solidarity. But to make a judgment that evidence of a threat from Saddam is insufficient, particularly when history has proven that judgment right and the American (and, honestly, mine at the time) judgment wrong, is not something to criticize.

Now, if you make the argument that the decision was taken on this visceral anti-Americanism you describe, the reasoning might be worthy of criticism. But so far, this is one of the few things I think Canada can feel just a bit smug aboot.

And remember, I hate Canada. Politely.

I know, gentle readers, that you have been anxiously awaiting my take on the entire Swift Boat Thingy.

I have been wondering how to put my thoughts into words, but now, thankfully, Jesse Walker has done it for me. Please read it for the Real Ultimate Take on the Truth Behind the Lies.

Looks like terrorism may be reaching Russia, as the same day that 250 rebels are staging an attack on Grozny in advance of Putin’s weekend visit there, two planes from the same airport have disappeared from radar within minutes of each other in two different places in Russia. One has been confirmed to have crashed.

Two planes, simultaneously crashing? Smells like Al Quaeda. They love simultaneous bombs.

Well, I guess GWB will get some more support from Putin, if this pans out like I suspect.

The Adam Smith Institute has a good summary of China’s role in your pain at the pump. In even more brief, China’s increasing energy usage is outstripping supply, and will continue to drive up fossil fuel prices.

Unfortunately, China is not using that oil as efficiently as large Western countries. However, the Kyoto protocol, which Western countries (infamously save the US) signed, doesn’t let Western countries get credit for emissions reduction in developing countries like China. This is profoundly stupid.

The largest growth in raw material consumption will be in the less-developed countries, as they have further to go to achieve the state of the art in development. So if they are going to be burning more oil for the same kilowatt hour of electricity, doesn’t it make sense to make them more efficient as they grow, rather than trying to limit consumption in the West which is much closer to the theoretical maximum of efficiency?

If you redirect pollution reduction efforts to areas where they can be done most cost-effectively, everybody wins—assuming you’re dead-set on making the reductions. China gets more efficient plants and reduces energy expenditures, and the West doesn’t have to pay as much per ton of carbon eliminated from the atmosphere.

However, I suspect that vision would enrage many environmental activists who are more interested in economic hairshirt practices and ideological purity than actual reductions in pollution.

Plus setting targets for pollution reduction in developing countries scares the bejebus out of them, as they instinctively know what the EU claims not to know: any distortion of the market results in lower overall wealth creation. Their legitimacy is now tied to how well they sustain their rates of growth, and they fear any measure that might mitigate that. At the same time, there is an overall lack of trust in true market mechanisms to distribute pollution reduction more efficiently than bureaucrats.

To tie this all together, if Kyoto had allowed reductions in developing countries, the US would have likely signed. If the US had signed and started making reductions in China, Chinese demand might be slightly reduced, and projections of its future demand would definitely be reduced. In all likelihood, you’d pay less at the pump.

In the meantime, enjoy the last few years you can use your SUV without taking out a third mortgage.