Yes. This thing indeed.

I think you can only be a Canadian nationalist through anti-Americanism. That's a central tenant of my whole philosophy of this country, I would say. There's a liberal strain of Canadian nationalism that champions superiority over the US via social programs and such, and a more reactionary strain that celebrates the monarchy and empire and such, but ultimately they're two sides of the same coin. Canada is a social experiment that requires the United States as a counter-example in order to function. I think you can be a happy and satisfied and loyal Canadian, as I am, without being anti-American, but you'll never be a great nationalist and your patriotism will never be very aggressive.

I don't totally follow you, but yes. A lot of my early comics are ignorant or naive in various ways, often because I was very caught up in the myopic narratives of the present. I imagine that's also thew case today, but I don't have the perspective to notice it yet.

Once in a while. It's mostly pennies as well. For some reason I feel like I almost never see American dimes.

If that were the case, North America would be even more smotheringly dominant of the global culture than it is now. Just imagine the impact of a second Hollywood or a second New York City. There'd be more English-speakers in North America than people in all of Europe! Beyond that, I am not sure. It's hard to imagine a universe in which America and Canada are equals, since so much of what makes Canada distinctly Canadian is defined in opposition to American strength and superiority.

I guess the idea would be if there's a conflict between your economic interests and America's interests, you side with the latter. That's the problem with the Cayman Islands stuff, Romney seems to be saying his duties/obligations as an American citizen/taxpayer are subordinate to his interests as a rich guy who wants to maximize his investments.

I think he will run, I don't think he's a shoe-in for the nomination, though.

Because Trudeau's policies did not work. They did not yield substantial economic growth, while free trade, which was brought in by a Conservative government after Trudeau left office, did. Chretien was a pragmatic guy and was able to realize this once he became PM, even though he had opposed Free Trade while in opposition. Chretien and Paul Martin were very much part of the wave of born-again neo-liberal liberals who were popular in many western democracies during the 1990s.

If I just had to randomly speculate, I'd say Harper probably venerated Bush as a symbol of conservative success, and Bush probably had his traditionally warm, but uncomplicated feelings of friendship towards a foreign leader that was on "his side." I think the more interesting question would be how Harper reflects on the Bush legacy today. I think a case can be made that Harper is now quite consciously trying to avoid some of what ruined the later years of the Bush presidency.

I think limiting its membership to democratic states that pass some sort of civil liberties assessment would go a long way in improving its legitimacy. The security council should also be reformed, but that's trickier.

Of course! In fact, I should get cracking on that.

I was having this argument with a friend the other day. I think the GOP "rejection of science" narrative is a bit overdone — once you correct for the obvious whacko outliers like Todd Aiken, I think you can only really argue that mainstream Republicandom rejects the science of evolution and climate change, although even that latter one I'd say is a bit hazy. They don't reject the occurrence of weather, though this is sometimes how Democrats frame it. I think there's just some legitimate questioning and illegitimate conspiracies about whether the stated claims of the consensus climate change narrative — particularly the claims of human responsibility and our ability to swiftly correct the symptoms — are really that rock-solid.

This might not be science per se, but I think Democrats reject a lot of fact-based arguments about immigration, which really doesn't yield the vast, undeniable and necessary economic benefits they often claim. Liberals, in fact, tend to really hate analyzing the economic aspects of immigration at all, since they support it primarily as a policy of compassionate multiculturalism and then just assume other justifications must also exist.

Some people clearly like using it. Most cartoons I post get at least a dozen replies. I know a lot of the people on there clearly don't like me, but I'm all about giving readers as many venues as possible to engage with my work and ideas.

I saw it! It's pretty great. I like the line "well, we rebuilt it." I think that says everything about the difference between Canadians and Americans.

I really don't get the impression Ron Paul is that smart or schemey. I think what you're describing is probably a better analysis of the Tea Party itself.

It's an interesting phenomena to be sure.

I think it's mostly the result of a partisan, 24-hour news cycle. When the press is dominated by pundits of one ideological persuasion or another, there's this very strong incentive to respond to absolutely everything from a static left or right-wing perspective, even if the news item itself is barely ideological, let alone political. It's a bias of our news media more than a legitimate byproduct of a "increasingly divided nation," in my view.

Mulroney tries to take credit for being one of the leading Cold Warriors of the 1980s, but I don't think anyone takes this seriously.

I think it's quite a handsome flag, design-wise. It's very distinctive and creative probably one of the most recognizable in the world as a result. I do dislike the fact that it contains exactly zero symbolism of anything, though. The problem with the pro-Red Ensign set, however, is that they idolize a flag with pretty dumb symbols. I guess both are flawed in ways the other is not.

I think they would care in time, honestly. There's a sort of "wow" factor with some politicians that can decline very quickly once their actual views are learned —just ask Rudy Giuliani. I think, however, that the GOP base would be quite forgiving if she just did a Romney-like flip-flop on the issue, though, because, as you said, the Obama-hatred is so high.

As a general rule, no, but it's not always as sinister as it sounds. You do want to report the facts honestly, and if a politician says something that seems quite out of whack with his previously stated agenda, I think it's fair to clarify quotes like that before publishing. I'm not sure that the public interest is best served by printing lots of flustered answers to "gotcha" questions or obvious flubs or misstatements.