…may take a couple smacks(we shall endeavor to persevere)…they are rather resilient…thick skins, lots of fat, thick skulls…they don’t know they are dead until long after the fact…

…they taste great with maple smoked bacon and strong beer.

…protected under the US Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972:…? well then I guess that means the US will be obliged to put an end to global warming …thanks again…your patronage is greatly appreciated…

now where did I put my beer

Regardless of their particular paternal lineage, all walruses are protected under the US Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....ection_Act

I infer from the wiki article on walruses that there are equivalent Canadian and Russian laws on the subject as well (but haven’t checked for specifics):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus

So I reckon that walruses will be able to go on entertaining us with their antics on Nature-type TV shows into the indefinite future — as long as the national wildlife authorities responsible for the oversight of their populations can remain reasonably honest and efficient.

Fine, as long as Canadians don’t expect the US to fire its interceptor missiles in defense of Canadian territory. There’s only a limited number and who knows what their success rate will be (I suppose this could be one of the unspecified “mores” you allude to).

Since the 2005 vote, I’ve often wondered what the Canadian government’s instructions are to their officers who fill the Canadian portion of the watchingkeeping shifts at NORAD. And what the US DoD’s instructions are to their American counterparts, in the event our space surveillance systems are in fact efficient enough to pick up the incoming track of one or more ballistic missiles that appear to be headed for Canada.

I suppose the subject is top secret, as my attempts to search for even speculative articles on this subject have been unsuccessful to date. A good idea to keep potential adversaries guessing, I suppose.

The argument of, “it could happen to me” is covered when I pay for my own insurance. My labor - my protection. That insurance company has to compete with another company and keeps prices down — free market economics.

#12 You’re right in some aspects. Those companies should be fined for hiring illegal aliens.

Since there is a demand for cheap labor, let’s call it entry-level work, lets ask the people that are able to work, but aren’t (certain people on welfare) and ask them to do the jobs that the illegals are doing. If they refuse, stop the welfare. If they take it, great! Let the price of strawberries be high, I don’t care. I don’t think there will be protests over pricer OJ or strawberries. There will be more strawberry farmers, more work and/or higher wages for pickers. Supply - Demand.

heroic resistors to US arrogance….

…in Canada a hero is someone who have more hockey scars than teeth

resisting ? resisting spending ourselves out of social programs to defend ourselves against all those enemies we just don’t have ?

we only resist working longer than we have to, to qualify for unemployment benefits for another year

…US arrogance.?..we spell it a bit different..ignorance..lots of the same letters, but essential a different, humm quality.

…self-satisfaction.?..hardly a Canadian trait, except if we were satisfied with our own sense of humility, which hardly rings the same way now does it…

I watched a show on walruses the other day ( you know how outdoorsie we Canadians are)…there was this huge dominate male, throwing all his weight around chasing other would be king of the hill walruses for the right to mate with females in that prime territory…on the side, at the fringe of all the noise and fighting were the females, and these smaller, younger male walruses….mating away albeit, clandestine…strange thing, the winner of the battle had no idea that what he was fighting for, was the right to think he was king of the hill, and the father of all the young…

Well a silly show, but then again, how smart are walruses ?

No, I’m saying that sharing a huge border with a friend and ally is - and has been - of mutual benefit to both countries. Canada has a strong ally next door, while the United States can maintain overseas bases and fleets of carriers without having to devote enormous resources to its longest border.

“Canadians can certainly congratulate themselves on making “the smart play” here, not only in terms of tax monies saved but also on the self-satisfaction they get to enjoy from posturing on the world stage as heroic resisters to US “arrogance” (as personified by the current administration).”

We have increased and are increasing cross-border security cooperation with the United States. We currently have around 2500 troops fighting in Afghanistan. I’m in favor of both.

Opposing missile defense and a disastrous war in Iraq was/is about more than “posturing on the world stage” or saving money.

We (the US) did this (project itself around the world) from about 1942 through approx 1965, without having to maintain any (much less a “strong”) military presence on its “vast northern border.”

At a time when Canada maintained one of the largest surface Navy fleets in the world; somehow the issue of this being a possible “threat” to the US never seemed to enter anyone’s mind at the time.

I’m surprised you seemingly seriously suggest Canadian military weakness as a “virtue” for the US to “enjoy” nowadays. As a debating point it seems rather “theoretical” & one without any “real-world” relevancy. Perhaps suggested to you by the previous thread here on WWI (and earlier) era Canada/US military defense contingency planning?

It’s Canada’s sovereign decision what it wants to do with its tax monies, of course. All I ask is that it live with the consequences of its own decisions — it’s a matter of pure aesthetics as much as anything with me.

The quintessential example being the Canadian Parliament’s decision in Feb 2005 to reject participation in continental US ballistic missile defense (interestingly, the issue of ROK participation in ballistic missile defense has been subsequently the subject of another post here, to be found immediately above).

The ultimate high-risk low-probability defense event. Canadians can certainly congratulate themselves on making “the smart play” here, not only in terms of tax monies saved but also on the self-satisfaction they get to enjoy from posturing on the world stage as heroic resisters to US “arrogance” (as personified by the current administration).

And the United States can project (and has long been able to project) itself around the world without having to maintain a strong military presence on its vast northern border. It may be “the smart play” for both countries involved.

By the way, Canadian defence spending would now appear to be on the rise.