For a work advocating historical-comparative empirically based explanations, McLaughlin's (2005) article predicting coming crisis in is stunning in its lack of comparative evidence. It asserts that USA is the dominant global force in today (5) without presenting a shred of comparative evidence. That assertion might have been true a quarter of a century ago, but it ignores tremendous recent development of in other countries, of European Sociological Association, of International Sociological Association, etc. American is big bigness brings power, but paper fails to present convincing evidence that USA is dominant global force in terms of quality publications. The American Sociological Association meetings are impressive in terms of excellence of some presentations but others are characterized by sleep-inducing mediocrity, as is case with other conferences. Those meetings are organized on basis of intelligent practices (selection founded on complete papers not just abstracts) rather dumb practices (the factory-farm approach of maximizing verbal output for input of time consumed on program by having ten speakers presenting concurrently to ten round tables in same room). The article declares that Britain remains a relative backwater with regards to discipline of sociology (16), but only supports this putdown with hearsay references to pre-1945 pre-1914 period. No evidence is presented documenting that big three British journals (BJS, Sociology, Sociological Review) are of lesser quality than big three American journals (ASR, AJS, SF). It is unacceptable to make an unsubstantiated slur of a nation's as a backwater, then leave it to others to disprove. The author assesses dominance backwater by simply dismissing from discipline anything he does not like, thereby silencing creative debate of ideas, impoverishing discipline, limiting to an ultra-narrow orthodoxy. The article asserts that universities have a local provincial to them (11), that University of Alberta has a very large cultural studies/literary to its theoretical orientation (15), that Anglo-Canadian universities have always had a British flavour to them (16), that Canadian journal Studies in Political Economy and its networks retain a sectarian feel (21). One person's sense of or flavour does not constitute rigorous sociological documentation. The article's conjecture that general explains particular--that pan-Canadian characteristics of institutional flatness, of important role of state, of anti-Americanism have led to weaknesses crisis in specific discipline of only there--is entirely unconvincing can only be sustained by ad hoc add-ons. The discussion of institutional structure of Canadian higher is an incoherent jumble of flat in terms of similar levels of institutional prestige, flat in terms of same quality of research publications, flat in terms of equal tuition fees, with no evidence presented to confirm that three are closely related. If equal tuition fees leads to low-quality research, how did University of Toronto ever become a prestigious research-oriented university when its tuition fees are no higher than those at Brock or Trent Universities (10)? McGill University must be much worse in research than Acadia University since its tuition fees are much lower. I can suggest a different answer to question of relationship between tuition fees research quality: there is no relationship. Germany (Habermas, Luhmann, Beck) France (Bourdieu, Foucault, Latour) are now among leaders in discipline of sociology, yet tuition fees in those two countries are vanishingly close to zero precisely because state maintains its support of higher education instead of privatizing it. …