First off, I agree that "cooking the results to make the answer London sells papers in London". I pointed out in story that giving points to London for being "capital" changed their result by itself, not to mention giving New York and other cities no credit for elevated railways. I also indicated in one of my own posts that I would have argued that Tokyo deserved much more credit for its sheer size than it got.

But why would Master Card cook their study to underplay New York's financial power? Considering it puts 9 US cities in top 25, its preference for US cities should be apparent as Independent's preference for London, yet you say it grossly undervalues New York's power as business centre (not financial centre, that counts as another criterion). I don't really know what happened there, but perhaps they rely on information other than what you have presented.

I do think that New York, Tokyo, and London count as Big Three in one order or another because of their size, financial power, and world reach. Rome and Paris certainly shine as incredibly beautiful and historic cities, but surely don't focus world's attention as they once did. For example, when South Korea catches up to France economically (and it probably will), will Seoul (2-1/2 times larger) really deserve to take back seat to Paris? Status of cities must be tied to some extent to status of countries they represent.

I agree with you on this. Washington, DC, doesn't compare well to other world-class cities, but should be considered "great" anyway because of its influence on world affairs in general. Beijing may be China's third largest city after Shanghai and Canton (Guangzhou), but it should be considered more important than either of its larger rivals. Bigger military decisions probably get made in London than in New York, UN or no, because Britain remains militarily significant (if you give Moscow props for Russia having #2 nuclear arsenal, surely London gets similar props for having smaller nuclear arsenal still capable of destroying entire world, as well as Paris for same reason). New York's significance has always been primarily economic, not political or military, and when US valued economic power ahead of military power, that meant New York's status was elevated. Brussels may deserve more recognition than it has received so far, based only on its economic decision-making (no military decisions get made in Brussels), even though its country looks set to fall apart. But even if we disagree on minor points regarding specific cities, I think you make strong points about being "hard-nosed" in rating cities.

no military decisions get made in Brussels

They would beg to differ:

NATO Headquarters
Blvd Leopold III
1110 Brussels, Belgium
natodoc@hq.nato.int

Although, I suppose you could argue that while strategic and tactical decisions may be made there, overall military policy for NATO comes from above, so NATO shouldn't really count (to be fair, I was thinking about Brussels' status as the seat of the EU when I made my original post, but your rebuttal jogged my memory in regards to it being the seat of NATO as well). Your points about London and Paris are well taken, but the UK nuclear arsenal (and the UK military in general) is highly dependent on US support (in all senses - technological, political, and operational). Since France has maintained more independence, I think Paris probably has a stronger claim in that regard.

If London gets tagged as being "highly dependent on US support (in all senses - technological, political, and operational)", then surely Brussels' NATO Headquarters deserves same tags. But even nominal HQ for NATO ought to earn Brussels some points, maybe accounting for why it ended up at 29 (after 27. Montreal and 28. Vancouver) on Master Card's Worldwide Centres of Commerce.

if cultural diversity is a key factor, then Toronto would probably rate a higher mention than New York City

Please tell us more about Toronto's cultural diversity. What makes it more culturally diverse than New York or London or Sydney. Would you say Toronto reflects cultural diversity of Canada or that it has unique elements as Canada's magnet for immigration? Does it have all ethnic elements of Montreal and Vancouver, or smatterings of everything?

I'll refer you to zyxwvutsr's post on Toronto.  Home to virtually every ethnic group on earth and a total population of 4.5 million and growing, it's the fifth largest city in North America (after Mexico City, New York, LA, and Chicago).  I've heard estimates as high as over 100 different languages are spoken by Torontonians.  I wish I could find a cite, but I believe UNESCO recognized Toronto as the "most culturally diverse city in the world" either last year or the year before.

Actually, Toronto (at 5,350,000 people in its urban agglomeration) ranks No. 63 in the world, not just behind 3. Mexico City, 4. New York, and 8. Los Angeles, but also behind 27. Chicago (9,800,000), 35. DC/Baltimore (8,200,000), 41. San Francisco (7,250,000), 47. Dallas/Ft. Worth (6,150,000), 48. Philadelphia (6,000,000), 52. Detroit (5,700,000), 53. Houston (5,700,000), 56. Boston (5,650,000), 57. Miami (5,550,000), and even 58. Atlanta (5,500,000). I grant that Toronto feels more culturally sophisticated than Chicago, just as Vancouver (No. 188 with 2,200,000) feels more sophisticated than Seattle (No. 89 with 3,900,000), but Canadian cities always feel more urban than cities of comparable population in US because they concentrate their populations more and because Canada's national government puts more money into culture in its urban centres than US does. Still, even in Master Card's economic survey, Toronto comes in No. 12, behind New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Great city, to be sure, just not greatest city.

I didn't make myself clear with my initial post.  I really don't care that much about whether Toronto is the greatest city in the world or not.  Another set of criteria and you might end up with Shanghai or Mumbai or Singapore or Abu Dhabi as being the so-called "world's capital."  My sole point was that, if cultural diversity were a key factor in any such poll, Toronto matches up well against cities like the other humongous cities of North America.

Toronto matches up well against most US cities anyway, even putting cultural diversity to one side. Some large US cities have sections that look war-damaged even though there haven't been any wars, many others have large sections where every building has boarded up windows and doors, and almost all have huge ugly slums. Even Americans who work in urban areas really don't care what their cities look like as long as they have suburban bedroom communities to escape to, and rural Americans outright hate cities and prevail upon their representatives to starve cities of operating capital and subsidies even as they insist on enormous farm subsidies for themselves. Canadians, like Europeans, respect and like cities, and it shows.

...rural Americans outright hate cities and prevail upon their representatives to starve cities of operating capital and subsidies even as they insist on enormous farm subsidies for themselves

Canadians, like Europeans, respect and like cities...

Since when did rural Americans have so much political power?

I'd say since the US Senate was configured to give two senators to every state regardless of population.

I'd say since the US Senate was configured to give two senators to every state regardless of population

Since House of Representatives can't pass legislation by itself either, presumably it has to reach compromises on everything with rural-dominated Senate and President who represents rural Americans much more than urban Americans ("red states" = South + rural America). As we have seen lately, House can holler all it likes, but seldom gets its way on any truly important matter. During Bush years in particular, almost all pork has gone to red states, greater representation of urban areas in House notwithstanding.

As to your first point, rural voters in US get overrepresented in several important ways. Acefantastik correctly notes that structure of US Senate guarantees overrepresentation of rural states, with places like North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Vermont, and Maine each getting as many Senators as California, Texas, or New York despite incredible population disparities. And since Electoral College also gets impacted by imbalances in Senate (Senate seats + House seats = Electoral College votes for each state), rural states get more representation than urban states in electing Presidents. Finally, look at which states tend to dominate Presidential nomination process for both major political parties, namely Iowa and New Hampshire. No big cities, no ghettos, few blacks and Hispanics, mostly just rural white Americans. If any urban state tries to jump that queue, they get slapped down, like Florida did by Democrats. Rural Americans count more than urban Americans, which explains why fundamentalist white Christians have so much more influence than their 25% numbers would otherwise suggest.

As to your second point, in most cities outside US, richest people in any urban agglomeration live in city centres, or at least within city jurisdictions. Raise taxes on rich people and you tend to raise more money than when you raise taxes on desperate people. But in US, upper middle class mostly lives in suburban or even exurban areas, so when cities rot from within they mostly don't care and seldom can be reached for new tax money to bail cities out.

As to your third point, throwing money at urban operating budgets (as US does on rare occasions) doesn't have same impact on cities as funding arts or music or museums throughout nation. Even small towns in Canada or Europe seem to have more going on than small cities in US because of how central government spends money encouraging cultural activities.

As to your last point, no doubt agriculture gets subsidised in Canada and Europe, just as in US. My point was that fiscal conservatism among rural dwellers in US doesn't affect their own subsidies, just subsidies for cities. Any objective look at US cities and then at European and Canadian cities indicates that US cities suffer from widespread neglect, but rural Americans don't care, while in Canada and Europe people do care. That's why most European and Canadian cities look beautiful and most US cities struggle with ugliness and blight.  

You completely ignore the fact that US cities are not funded by the federal government, but raise their own revenue from local taxes. That differs somewhat from the way other nations handle things, but it also means that if a city is starved of "operating capital" then they've probably starved themselves. You also seem not to realize that in the US urban voters outnumber rural voters by a wide margin. If rural voters have a disproportionate impact on federal policy (and there is little evidence that they do, despite what you have claimed) then it is because urban voters have allowed things to happen that way, not because rural voters have imposed their will.

But in US, upper middle class mostly lives in suburban or even exurban areas, so when cities rot from within they mostly don't care and seldom can be reached for new tax money to bail cities out

Even small towns in Canada or Europe seem to have more going on than small cities in US because of how central government spends money encouraging cultural activities

My point was that fiscal conservatism among rural dwellers in US doesn't affect their own subsidies, just subsidies for cities

I acknowledge that US government doesn't help out cities much, even as your first comment claimed it did, to ill effect. Yes, that differs from how things work in Canada and Western Europe, where cities generally look and feel more livable. This list of top 101 US zip codes by income suggests that suburbs do much better than you like to admit. In Canada almost all of top economic areas would be in cities, and in Europe almost all of top economic areas would be in cities, but in US top economic areas mostly tend to be in suburban areas. This list of high-income suburbs illustrates depth of income disparities between US communities. Ultra-rich may not have abandoned cities entirely (oh, look, 2 of top 19 zip codes, with total population of 3,749, in NYC and LA!), but they mostly manage to avoid federal taxation and one suspects they mostly avoid city taxation as well. When middle class mostly lived in cities rather than suburbs, cities didn't have quite so many neglected slums and housing projects and didn't have to charge for entry to museums. But in 1950s and 1960s, movement from cities to outlying areas swelled to tide, and US cities never really recovered.

You claim that stupid urban voters allow themselves to get raped (just as US voters allow themselves to be fleeced to support War in Iraq even as majority now opposes this adventure), except that when suburban voters gang up with rural voters they form majority even in states with large cities.

Your cities contain most of your nation's underclass, and then you complain that cities spend huge amounts of money desperately trying to bring them up to speed but don't produce results as good as those in wealthy suburbs. Hypocrisy. Of course children of wealthy parents do better in schools than children of grinding poverty living in ugly slums with no hope for their future, no matter how much cities spend; your national social policies have seen to that. (They hate you for your freedom.)

I have been in all but four US states (I missed Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Hawaii) and all Canadian provinces and territories except Atlantic provinces of New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland/Labrador. If you have been to any major Canadian city (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton), can you honestly say that US cities of same size look better, have more cultural activities, have more art or music, have better public transit, or have any other obvious advantages? If you have been to any Canadian towns (like Regina or Saskatoon, both in places that would be empty in US, or London, Ontario), can you honestly say that comparable US towns don't seem depressing and boring by comparison? Even Canadian villages (population 10,000 to 20,000) compare well to US villages. You bet I express extremely biased opinion. So what do you base your opinion on?

More federal spending went to 41 cities than rural areas from 1983 to 1992 (except your cite doesn't even claim that), and you want me to check my assumptions? How much went to premier US cities, the giant ones with eight million or more people in their urban agglomerations (NYC, LA, Chicago, DC/Baltimore)? Why doesn't that matter? Because they vote Democrat? Oh, yes, little cities in Texas and Iowa get federal money, and they count in your statistics as if that money went to urban US.

How come richest country on Earth consistently falls behind Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and countries across Europe in quality of life surveys? How come international surveys always pick cities outside of US as best? I'll tell you why, because US doesn't care what happens in its cities and other countries do. If New York got half as much national support as London or Tokyo do, would there be any question which city was world's greatest? But you'd rather have big chunks of New York look bomb-ravaged than spend any money to fix them. Better to spend US$1 trillion trying in vain to subjugate Iraq or trying to start World War III so that your fundamentalists can "rapture". Why look after cities, or even environmental quality, when world won't be here in 20 years anyway? Residents of big cities can throw up their hands and lament such national stupidity, but they can't really do anything about it.

How come richest country on Earth consistently falls behind Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and countries across Europe in quality of life surveys?

My advice? Try harder. Try a lot harder. Your arguments are shallow, trite, and poorly researched.

If that is Joe Stalin, it's the new one.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

If you would rather call me that in honour of Plastic, fine. This was my original moniker, and it remains only one I have ever used on TnT. You can accuse me of trolling all you like, but I believe things I say, and I do my best to back up my arguments. By comparison, you don't even bother. It must be nice to feel so superior.

My advice to you? Come up with arguments of your own and find cites that support those arguments instead of just naysaying. As things stand, your arguments don't qualify as poorly researched because you don't offer any research at all. Accusing me of trolling doesn't qualify as argumentation and doesn't let you off hook for making statements you can't or won't support.

I must say though that since I was hoping to find people I could disagree with on TnT, how convenient that I can count on you.

I must say though that since I was hoping to find people I could disagree with on TnT, how convenient that I can count on you

The US government fails to adequately fund American cities and, even though the US has a federalist system that prevents it, it should try to be more like Canada or European nations in that regard. If only the US government funded museums and other cultural institutions then urban blight would disappear! It's because of the lack of federal funding that New York, for example, has so few museums and so little culture!

You're also correct that more US federal spending goes to rural areas than to cities -  the study I cited only covered the 80s and early 90s, and there must have been a wholesale shift in the structure of federal funding since then because...you say so! (You've convinced me to never trust "facts" again because they are clearly biased.)

Not having been to Saskatoon I'll have to take your word for it (and why wouldn't I - you've been right on everything else) that its "cultural activities...art or music" are superior to similarly-sized US cities such as New Orleans or Scottsdale, Arizona.

And of course you are right that "international surveys always pick cities outside of US as best." Even the survey we're discussing here shows that! Six of the top ten are non-US cities! Yay Canada!

You're also right that Washington DC (and New York and a number of other cities) has a poor school system because of their students, not because widespread corruption and mismanagement prevents money nominally spent on education from being spent for actual educational purposes such as school facilities, academic supplies, and teacher salaries.

I found it tempting to disingenuously thank you for seeing errors of your ways and letting it go at that. I also considered accepting your ostensible effort to disconnect from me by refusing to reliably disagree with me, but then your lengthy reply really doesn't support any actual effort to disconnect. So I will take your post as inviting me to joust.

Let's start with best cities. Naturally you chose Master Card's Centres of Commerce as definitive, even though we were actually discussing Independent's list until I linked to Master Card's list. On Independent's list, only city that makes top 10 is New York, but that list was unfair in only looking for world-class cities rather than habitable ones. This list includes New York at No. 8 and San Francisco at No. 10 (well after Sydney at No. 4), sandwiching Beirut at No. 9, which leaves me queasy about their entire list. This list of best cities to live in includes Los Angeles, and gets topped by rEv's favourite, Montreal, but no other US city makes it. CNN list says best US city was Honolulu at No. 21, with Melbourne and Vancouver at top. This BBC list didn't include even one US city, but put Vancouver and Melbourne at top. Mercer's list puts its first US city, Honolulu, at No. 27, with Zurich, Geneva, Vancouver, Vienna, and Auckland topping their list. Most beautiful women list includes one US city (Los Angeles at No. 5; sorry, rEv, Montreal at No. 8). Economist Intelligence Unit seemed to think Canada, Australia, and Europe had best cities (US didn't break top 20). So I guess you were right when you admitted that international surveys always pick cities outside of US as best.

Best public schools in US? North Dakota (also lowest crime rate), Montana, South Dakota. No cities of any description in any of those places. Minority populations in schools under 2%. Cities must all be corrupt, so no wonder they squander all of their education money. Well, that and it costs so much more to live in big cities that schools have to pay much more to get teachers to work there. Well, that and America's underclass mostly lives in those cities and pulls down test scores. Cities that manage to produce most of US gross domestic product have such widespread corruption and mismanagement that they can't spend money on school facilities, academic supplies, and teacher salaries. Too bad schools don't get run by big corporations, like your government gets run. So I guess you win this point: city school systems suck because corruption reigns supreme. Black people should all move to Fargo where they will all get top-notch educations.

New Orleans with its 300,000 people (and 1,000,000 plus in its metro agglomeration before Katrina) counts as being same size as Saskatoon with 207,000? Fine. I guess you don't have much choice. But New Orleans mostly looks gutted (and was full of really ugly slums even before Katrina) while Saskatoon looks modern and clean, and people feel safe on its streets. NO has better bars and better strip joints, hands down, and better music than Saskatoon, but Saskatoon has better museums and better art. Then you compare Scottsdale, integral part of Phoenix metro area with 4.2 million people, with Saskatoon? That really seems too desperate for comment.

You really can't figure out which argument you plan to make on whether US government funds cities or not. "US has a federal system that prevents it" on one hand, but "the study I cited [showing cities get more money than rural areas] only covered the 80s and early 90s, and there must have been a wholesale shift in the structure of federal funding since then". So which argument do you intend to make? Does US fund cities or not? Or does it fund them and not fund them at same time?

Good thing you agree with everything I say, since your original arguments had problems with internal consistency.

On Independent's list, only city that makes top 10 is New York

London
New York
Paris
Tokyo
Chicago
Madrid
Washington DC
Los Angeles
Rome

Since you've been right about everything else in this discussion I'll of course have to take your word that they've posted the wrong list and that only New York makes the top ten in the correct list.

Thank you for posting that list. I couldn't open your link, since I don't have Microsoft Office (perhaps explaining why I never saw that list when I write story), but this time I will take your word for it. Still, both Independent and Master Card lists dwell on economic power rather than livability, as indicated by various lists I linked.

Do you have anything to say about anything else I wrote, or do you concentrate only on those areas where you think you still have convincing arguments to make? Have you been to Canada, Australia, or Europe? Do you really think US cities compare well to comparably sized cities elsewhere? Do you think you would have to step over drunks or avoid large portions of town if you were in major Canadian, Australian, or European cities?

Do you think you would have to step over drunks or avoid large portions of town if you were in major Canadian, Australian, or European cities?

Speaking from experience, yes.  There are sections of Glasgow that I would certainly avoid, and there are definitely sections of London, Bristol and Manchester that I would go out of my way to not pass through.  I was in Belfast in 1993, and I can't recommend the Falls Road or Shankill after dark, even though non-political crime was/is very low in Belfast.  At that time, no one in their right mind would have gone to Crossmaglen, either.  I realize that N. Ireland may be a special case, but it is in Europe.

I have stepped over drunks in Le Havre, and certain parts of North Dublin are no place for your average tourist.

Sofia, Bulgaria has some places to avoid, and I stepped over quite a few drunks there as well.  Not to mention portions off of Мария Луиса where people were giving me the hairy eyeball.  Overall, Europe is generally safer than many or even most U.S. cities, but that doesn't mean you don't have to keep your wits about you.  An American tourist and his money are soon parted if you stroll into the wrong neighborhoods of many European cities, if not by shakedown, then by rip-off.  Hate to say it, but avoid anywhere you see a lot of Romany/Travelers/Gypsies...

Every city, no matter where it is, has parts to avoid.  I don't recommend Hunters Point to tourists visting San Francisco, and I don't recommend that anyone go to the 'Shady Eighties' or 'Ghost town' areas of Southeast Oakland.  Americans often have the view that they can roam freely about town in Europe, and it just ain't so.  

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Sounds like I've overidealised Britain, in particular. Bulgaria doesn't surprise me as much as Britain does.

"Overall, Europe is generally safer than many or even most U.S. cities, but that doesn't mean you don't have to keep your wits about you."

I imagine theft rather than violence characterises most European crime. No one wants to get ripped off, to be sure, but getting beaten or killed really seems to be in another category entirely.

Have you been to Canada, Australia, or Europe?

Do you think you would have to step over drunks or avoid large portions of town if you were in major Canadian, Australian, or European cities?

Actually, I admit I've never been to Munchen, but check out these murder rates in various US and European cities:

Washington, D.C., US, 69.3 murders per 100,000
Philadelphia, US, 27.4 per 100,000
Dallas, US, 24.8 per 100,000
Los Angeles, US, 22.8 per 100,000
Chicago, US, 20.5 per 100,000
Phoenix, US, 19.1 per 100,000
Moscow, Russia, 18.1 per 100,000
Houston, US, 18.0 per 100,000
New York City, US, 16.8 per 100,000
Helsinki, Finland, 12.5 per 100,000
Lisbon, Portugal, 9.7 per 100,000
San Diego, US, 8.0 per 100,000
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 7.7 per 100,000
Belfast, N.Ireland, UK, 4.4 per 100,000
Geneva, Switzerland, 4.2 per 100,000
Copenhagen, Denmark, 4.0 per 100,000
Berlin, Germany, 3.8 per 100,000
Paris, France, 3.3 per 100,000
Stockholm, Sweden, 3.0 per 100,000
Prague, Czechoslovakia, 2.9 per 100,000

Or these murder rates for countries:

Slovenia, 0.7 per 1,000,000
Austria, 0.9 per 1,000,000
Sweden, 1.8 per 1,000,000
Switzerland, 2.3 per 1,000,000
Hong Kong, 2.4 per million
Norway, 2.5 per million
Ireland, 2.8 per million
Finland, 3.7 per million
Singapore, 4.3 per million

Now figures for Canadian cities:

Regina, 4.72 per 100,000
Saskatoon, 4.39 per 100,000
Sudbury, 4.00 per 100,000
Edmonton, 3.50 per 100,000
Vancouver, 3.45 per 100,000
Montreal, 3.40 per 100,000
Winnipeg, 3.05 per 100,000
Calgary, 2.60 per 100,000
Toronto, 1.80 per 100,000
Hamilton, 1.70 per 100,000
Halifax, 1.25 per 100,000
St. John's, 0.00 per 100,000

Or Canadian provinces/territories:

Nunavut, 10.21 per 100,000
Northwest Territories, 9.55 per 100,000
Saskatchewan, 4.12 per 100,000
Manitoba, 3.70 per 100,000
Yukon, 3.22 per 100,000
British Columbia, 2.24 per 100,000
Alberta, 2.00 per 100,000
Ontario, 1.45 per 100,000
Quebec, 1.34 per 100,000
New Brunswick, 1.07 per 100,000
Newfoundland, 0.96 per 100,000
Nova Scotia, 0.85 per 100,000
Prince Edward Island, 0.73 per 100,000

What French did makes more sense than what US does. Pushing crime-ridden slums into Paris suburbs has left Paris beautiful and livable in ways New York City can only dream about.

...check out these murder rates in various US and European cities

Pushing crime-ridden slums into Paris suburbs has left Paris beautiful and livable in ways New York City can only dream about

You know what? You're totally, totally right! Even when you get out of downtown, it still beats hell out of Calcutta. All those trendy people have been moving to SoBro because they don't see industrial blight, they see character.

You know what else? You're totally, totally right! Without gun rights, countries like Canada and Australia fall into grip of fascists and can't hope to fight their way back to freedom! Sneaky totalitarians have sold us down river! No wonder everyone hates you for your freedom.

You're totally, totally right to include Co-op City in your list of ugly places in New York.

I don't know what any of this has to do with gun rights or totalitarianism,  but if you say it's connected then I'll have to assume it's true - I mean, you've been right about everything else, what with your firm grasp of facts and all.

"Ugly places"? Here I was trying to present balanced view of your fair city. New York certainly has more going on that commercial towers in city centre, right? Did I link to pictures of industrial blight in South Bronx? Did I link to parts of Harlem off 125th Street? Did I link to tenement towers? No, I imagine New Yorkers feel pride welling in their hearts when they contemplate living in Co-op City. Sure, some rural types would probably feel fear living in some such concrete jungle, but this story was about great cities.

As for my link about habeas corpus, Americans love to dismiss their outrageous crime statistics by claiming that gun rights form barrier against totalitarian excesses by evil governments, and I wanted to point out that gun rights haven't really protected you against those excesses as much as you think.

Halifax - is it even a city?

• we have a mountain in the middle of the city

  Leaving aside for another discussion the vivid imagination that one must possess to call a 200 meter high hill a "mountain," I would point out that Halifax has a fort in the middle of the city. In that fort there is a cannon known as the "noon gun" that is fired precisely at noon each day, and has been for the past 250 years. It was originally done to allow departing ship captains to set their clocks for more accurate navigation - now it's done for tradition. (Which I think is very cool.) They also have bagpipers walking the ramparts. (Which is also very cool.)

  Halifax also has very nice public gardens in the center of the city.

• we are on an island

  Halifax is on a peninsula, which gives it a lot of waterfront but is more convenient than being on an island.

• we have great festivals

  Halifax has the Atlantic Jazz Festival which is well regarded enough to attract talent from all over the world, but is intimate enough that they aren't really bothered if you wander around backstage taking photos without a press pass.

• HUGE university population

  Dunno what you consider huge, but there are tens of thousands of university students in Halifax.

• restaurants everywhere

  Halifax not only has restaurants, but has brewpubs everywhere.
  

So far, all the Canadian beer I've had has been pretty sad.  I've only been to Niagara Falls and BC, but all I encountered was mediocre lager and thin ale that tasted like lager.  The only brewpub we could find in Niagara had so much support it shut down. (Of course, a lot of the blame for that ought to go to the fact that a big part of Niagara's customer base is underage American kids.)

all the Canadian beer I've had has been pretty sad

Just off the top of my head I strongly recommend several of the beers made by Quebec-based Unibroue. They specialize in various Belgian-style beers - my favorite is La Fin du Monde. If you prefer darker beers, then I suggest Trois Pistoles.

You need to try some more. As far as I am concerned Canada's beer is second only to American beer.

Trim that broad brush there, Z.  By just saying "American Beer" you are including Micholob Light, Bud Ice, and [shudder] "Nastygansett".  

By that broad definition, Canadian beer is second only to the stale piss of a Bowery drunk.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Halifax, population 300 some-odd thousand... not a city. Intimacy is not what festivals are supposed to be like... do you think anyone would care about Mardi Gras if it was only a few hundred people who all knew each other?

with just the four big universities here we have a third of the population of Hali...

Tipping Sacred Cows

DC/Baltimore really does suck. One wonders how powerful country can have such dreadful capital. I take your word on Halifax because Quebec City and Ottawa really could put any sensible person into coma. Toronto women may not be French, but "all the chicks are ugly" probably goes too far. Still, as one from Montreal, I will grant you would probably think so. Edmonton really does come down to one mall. I expected you to mention that Calgary has worst restaurants in western Canada, but you may not have stopped long enough on your way to Lake Louise to notice. As for your diss of Vancouver, I expected you to complain that it was overcast all winter, not that it was cold in summer. I notice you didn't complain about Vancouver food either. At least you tried to be honest. You seem overly dismissive of Victoria, though. I admit Butchart Gardens merit visiting by themselves, and maybe you didn't even see Victoria, but great food and charming harbour views really count for something, and Victoria arguably has Canada's best weather, which seems like it would be important to you.

As for your top 10 list, Vancouver's mountains north of town rival your mountain in town (and ever been to Whistler?), we have as much water as you do on your island, we have better weed than you do, our live music scene really matches anything in Canada, and all your sex allusions reflect personal taste. Still, I have to compliment you on your enthusiasm for your city. Few things in life deserve as much admiration as having arranged your life so that you love where you live.

If who did anything?

While NYC is not a capital, it is the seat of the UN and therefore incurs at least as much "prestige [and] ... economic activity" as any of the capitals.

Yeah, well, if the UN did anything, maybe they'd have counted for points in the article.

It's like "Night of the Living Republican." The idiots are right outside, and they want to eat your brain.

If London had a major UN office then they would have added the UN to their list of criteria.

Actually, they claimed Sydney as ethnic cuisine capital of world. These days, Las Vegas deserves points for ethnic cuisine, and cuisine in general, but not for anything else unless nude entertainment counts for something.

Las Vegas deserves points for ethnic cuisine, and cuisine in general

It does?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Most famous chefs in US have opened restaurants there, and range of ethnic cuisines available has really increased dramatically. (So has size of city, which now stands at around 1,500,000.)

Wolfgang Puck doesn't count.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Does Emeril count? Does Jean-Louis Palladin count? Do nationally-renowned sommeliers count? How many different chefs and how many citations do you need for me to make this toss-off point?

Enough to keep me away from grand lux every time I go to vegas for the rest of my life:)

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.