As I picture it, the collective American sense of aggravation with Canada soared above its limit this week with news of a safe tattoo program for prisons.

It all started with Canada’s demur on war in Iraq.

This ticked off those who feel they truly represent the United States, like President George Bush. I had the honour of experiencing the tickedness of Bill O’Reilly on Fox News (&#0147We report, you . . . er . . . WE decide&#0148) who threatened vast economic losses &#0151 as if Americans do business with us because we are compliant lackeys or because they like us, as opposed to needing oil and enjoying their vacations here. (Where will they go in their campers instead: Mexico, which also declined war?)

This was echoed in dire warnings from Canadian sources, making it seem as if nothing more would be done to rile the O’Reillys.

Then our government embraced decriminalization of pot. This may have been a bigger shock to the U.S. system than just saying &#0147no&#0148 to war. The White House drug czar, deputy drug czar, attorney-general and director of homeland security all voiced dismay. The threats were again economic.

You’d have thought our government would surely avoid further irritants. Along comes gay marriage. The feds won’t stand in the way; provincial governments line up to agree. Shots of gay couples, mostly middle-aged, passionately kissing in front of city hall after tying the knot. Are they doing this solely to irritate us?

For years, the main irritant we provided was more sober: our universal public health-care system, known as &#0147the Canadian example.&#0148 Ralph Nader is always citing it as what Americans could have instead of their costlier, porous set of private programs. U.S. media ran frequent stories on our lineups and waiting lists as deterrents to even getting the subject talked about.

But the recent cases are more peevish and cultural. They amount to our contribution to global resistance against the U.S. agenda. In typical fashion, we make our point not through economic counter-alliances like the EU or suicide bombings; we do it with satire and lifestyle, getting under their cultural skin.

It’s normal for societies to be preoccupied by what matters to them in other societies: But enough about you, let’s talk about how you affect us.

The U.S. is even more one-sided. It tends to skip the initial part, only reporting on the rest of the world as it impinges on the U.S. So, as Edward Said has long complained, the Arab world is seen chiefly as a source of terror, as if nothing else ever happens there except long quiet periods in which the next terror outburst is germinating.

True, we are all a bit that way (Toronto Star: Bridge collapses in Mongolia; no Canadians hurt) but it matters differently in a unipolar world in which the U.S. is involved almost everywhere, or is on the way in (to Africa currently). Then they get into a mess and all they have to help them cope is a set of self-reflecting stereotypes.

But of course we don’t do it just to irritate them, do we? For myself, what I ponder about the safe tattoo program is not the U.S. reaction. It is: Will they finally stop using that awful prison blue, drained from Bic pens, as the only colour; will a full spectrum now be available?

Skins, thick and thin

As an aid to voters in Toronto’s mayoral race, here are some notes on how politicians deal with criticism, a subject I find revealing.

In reply to last week’s column on the decline of Toronto, former mayor Barbara Hall wrote a letter to the editor saying I had asked her &#0147to account for my time in office as mayor of Toronto. Happy to oblige.&#0148 Then came a pastiche of lines from her campaign literature on her accomplishments. In fact, I wrote that she &#0147has yet to explain how she fought the descent [of Toronto’s services] or why she contributed to it.&#0148 So she chose not to reply. We know many politicians deal with questions that way and now we know she is one of them.

I preferred John Nunziata’s cheery note: &#0147I am running because I WILL reverse the decline of this once fine city. There I said it. Rick, please don’t judge me only by my Web site.&#0148 He doesn’t ignore what I said, and doesn’t act as if I’m so stupid I won’t notice. (I once asked former Ontario Tory leader Larry Grossman if he wanted to rebut some mean things I’d written on him. He paused thoughtfully, then said, “No, that was fair.” Perhaps he thought it was; perhaps he just decided he had nothing to gain from arguing. Either way, he came out looking smart.)

I also preferred Tom Jakobek, who didn’t respond at all, though I mistakenly said he didn’t even have a Web site.

I was also wrong to say that the lonely windmill on the lakeshore was erected by the city. It was done despite bureaucratic obstacles by a local group Windshare and Toronto Hydro. So the meagre points awarded the city for it during Toronto’s age of decline are now deducted.

rick_salutin_small_24_1_1_1_1_0

Rick Salutin

Rick Salutin is a Canadian novelist, playwright and critic. He is a strong advocate of left wing causes and writes a regular column in the Toronto Star.