A Voice for Freedom

Samuel Alito, it would seem, is against racism…oops, I meant "ethnic quotas"…and does not believe the Constitution supports abortion.

Admittedly I didn't read much of the article I saw in my local paper about it today, but it sounds like several mainstream media outlets are trying to pass this off as a bad thing. Go figure.

Now, it's all well and good for people to be inquisitive about Alito's politics, but did we really expect Bush to nominate a racist or an abortion advocate to the Supreme Court? Anybody? Show of hands? Yes, I think I see one from the moron in the back. Step forward and claim your prize, sir!

What's the prize? Lifetime magazine subscription. Your choice, Idiots' Monthly or their subsidiary, Green Party News (the latter printed entirely on paper made of something you can also eat or use as a floor wax).

I'll probably catch some flak for calling "ethnic quotas" racist, but that's okay…after all, a lot of Germans caught flak for calling "the final solution" genocide. In their case, of course, it was real flak. The point is that people are not often especially popular for saying it like it is. But racial discrimination is racial discrimination, whether it's anti-black, anti-Native, anti-white, or whatever. The only difference is that whites are supposed to feel like we deserve it because our great-great-great-grandparents did something horrible. "Sins of the father" and all that. Wait, isn't that judging me by what others of my race have done in the past? Isn't that illegal in America? Isn't that prejudice? Oh, right, no, because I'm white. See, just like anti-white racism can't be called racism, anti-white prejudice can't be called prejudice. Some other words that no longer mean what they mean: "African", "server", "Burma", and "constitutional".

As for abortion, well, I basically believe that brain cells=mind=life, which means it's wrong after about a week. I've never actually met anyone else with that particular belief, but according to the polls I've seen it's a little over half the country that believes late-term abortions are wrong. What, exactly, is wrong with a Supreme Court justice who feels the same way?

The majority's wrong, some might say. But that sounds like an awfully Canadian attitude for people to have around here.

To be honest, I never could remember which was Memorial Day and which was Veterans' Day…you Americans have too many holidays for me to get a handle on (imagine the nightmare I'd have living in France). In Canada, today is Remembrance Day.

At 11:00 on 11.11.1918, the bloodiest war in the history of the world came to an end. And it had all been for nothing.

Kings and emperors and sovereigns of every sort throwing armies at each other just because they could, that was Europe's great contribution to the second decade of the twentieth century. And with alliances crisscrossing the continent and the world in a spiderweb of unbelievable mass and complexity, soon enough everyone was involved somehow, whether they wanted to be or not. Not exactly a rousing endorsement for the supranational tendencies still so prevalent in Europe today.

Before and since that day, we've had wars both senseless and necessary, both types altogether too frequent. On this day, we pause to remember everyone who fought and died in every one of them. We honor them with ceremonies, honor guards, salutes, minutes of silence, and the wearing of poppies. To put it another way, a thousand gestures that do more to make us feel like we're doing what's socially required than to show any sort of real respect. Oh, I'm sure there's respect there, for most people anyway, but the simple fact is that most of those people are also of the persuasion that says thinking of war and death is distasteful and unnecessary and should be avoided every other day of the year.

That's why I could never bring myself to believe in Remembrance Day. I'd rather have a moment of private reflection when I think of my grandfather (who was a bomber pilot in WWII), or when I'm reminded of my visit to the Omaha Beach cemetery, or when I hear a song like Trace Adkins' "Arlington". To presume that the truly respectful among us require a group action in order to remember is to insult not only them, but the deeds and persons of those they remember.

Our government tries so hard to legislate so many things that it has no place in. Do we really need to our leaders to determine how and when we are to remember our fallen heroes?

And if we do, then shame upon us all.

The Washington Post printed an interesting article recently. In it, they describe how senators are getting uptight about the coming withdrawal from Iraq, asking for a concrete timeline from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Condi talked about the American troops' new role in Iraq, helping the new government in "nation-building" activities - everything from helping put together the political system to building basic infrastructure. According to the Post, though, she "avoided answering questions" about how long American troops will be in Iraq.

"Avoided answering"? No. "Couldn't answer"? Closer. The Bush administration's position on Iraq has been made quite clear: we'll be there as long as we're needed. The Iraqis don't have the police or military forces to defend themselves from insurgents right now, and the last thing anyone needs is for the anti-democracy terrorists to take over and install another Hussein. And how long the insurgency will continue is something nobody can answer.

Maybe a lot of people are getting tired of what they seem to think is still a "war" (it isn't), but you can't possibly try to convince me that even a sizable fraction of those Americans most staunchly opposed to the initial invasion are against helping maintain the new democracy now that it's there. If you like the idea of maintaining freedom, you pretty much have to support what American troops are doing in Iraq these days. It's no longer about regime change or protecting American interests or stopping Hussein's WMD program (which did exist, though it had had limited success by the time of the invasion). It's about a democratic government struggling to get on its feet and asking an ally for badly-needed assistance. Remember when the revolutionaries here in the US got help from overseas against the Brits? It's exactly the same.

The troops will be coming home when they've done their jobs. That's the truth, though it's hard to hear. But would you rather be told that they'll be home by Christmas, only to find them spending two more holiday seasons abroad, as happened in Korea? Be thankful that Bush's people are brave enough to admit that they don't know, instead of pretending they have all the answers like previous war presidents have.

Okay, so does anyone else think these "I Know Big Tobacco" ads are downright moronic?

Don't get me wrong, I know smoking is bad for you. And statistics say teenagers and twentysomethings are the most likely to start smoking (though that's more because younger people can't and older people already have, rather than because teenagers are idiots - we're not). So an ad campaign designed to inform young people about the dangers of tobacco is fine. But educating kids about the dangers of tobacco is not the same as teaching them that "Big Tobacco" is evil and out to kill them all for the sake of profit.

"Big Tobacco", it should be pointed out, doesn't exist. The invented boogeyman of the advertisements in question is a façade chosen to represent a certain fraction of corporate America because the phrase "a few thousand mostly-honest people trying to make a living" didn't quite have that same Jason Voorhees vibe.

But make no mistake, Big Tobacco is not some big, scary, oh-no-the-thing-under-the-bed's-going-to-eat-me monster. It's an industry, just like any other. It is ruled by the market and sped along by the profit motive, just as any business is supposed to be in a capitalist society. I suppose capitalism is the actual problem here; the architects of this slander campaign apparently take issue with the idea of people making money because other people are idiots and keep demanding the product.

And it is a slander campaign. These advertisements aim to identify, separate, and systematically attack a particular segment of society. That's not only slander, it's bigotry.

And it's dangerous, because it ignores the real issue completely. Believe it or not, folks, some people don't have a problem with corporations, and your stick-it-to-the-man approach won't work on them. Most everyone, however, has a problem with the concept of losing a lung, so stick to that angle. It'll work better, and it won't come off as quite so whiney.

In case you needed some more evidence that Easterners hate us, try this: some two-bit Toronto publication recently printed an issue with the headline "Alberta takes the cake! (sort of): 9 reasons to celebrate the province everyone loves to hate."

Their article, written by an Albertan who clearly just doesn’t freaking get it, goes like this…

If you pay much attention to Canada’s national news media, you’ve probably come to a couple of conclusions about Alberta and Albertans: One, that we’re filthy stinking rich, with tycoons in top hats wandering the streets, lighting hundred-dollar cigars with fifty-dollar bills; and two, that it’s an entirely conservative sort of place, in which the likes of Ralph Klein and Stephen Harper speak for a united, socially regressive Alberta. You’re bound to get caught up in stereotypes, what with the whole we-hate-Kyoto thing, and the constitution-schmonstitution approach to same-sex marriage legislation. Yes, to leftists everywhere, Alberta is the loveable villain, the Rob and Amber of Survivor/Amazing Race fame. It’s easy enough to dismiss the province as a backwater, but it’s also a sadly simplistic take on a very diverse, non-homogenous grouping of people that happen to live in this particular corner of the country.

What many people fail to realize is that, buried deep under the slick coat of oily conservatives that purport to speak for all Albertans, is a strangely hidden undercurrent of progressive thought. You’ll find it in the strangest places, and generally when you least expect it. Is Alberta a liberal place? Far from it. Is Alberta a bastion of hippy-dippy love-ins and new-age crystal vendors? Nope. But it sure has a long history of doing liberal-minded things, and has its fair share of progressive, innovative thinkers, regardless of what happens on federal election nights.

My face turned six shades of crimson when I read that one. It's scary to think that this trash is even written, let alone made available to the public. While the author (whose name I don't know, and how lucky for him that fact is he’ll never know) does do a decent job of describing the typical Eastern view of Alberta, he commits quite a few factual errors in his own right.

First off, he tries to claim that Alberta is the one ignoring the constitution, when it's the feds who are tossing it aside at the drop of one of our "oily top-hats" on issues such as marriage and healthcare, both clearly defined as provincial jurisdictions in the constitution.

Next, he equates "progressive thought" with left-wing politics and "socially regressive thought" with conservativism. This is not, and has never been the case. In fact, cowboy country (I'm talking here about Alberta and the mountain West of the United States) has always been far ahead in terms of egalitarian ideals. Wyoming, for example, was the first jurisdiction in North America to allow women the right to vote or hold political office - back when it was a territory, before "socially forward" Canada was even a country. Black cowboys were out here on the range being treated as equals while their contemporaries were still being spit upon by selfrighteous metropolis-dwelling Easterners. The cowboy states and province have always been met with this idea that we are somehow socially backward, but it's just a way of dismissing anything we say by painting us with the bigot brush. Unfortunately, the majority of Easterners fall victim to this propaganda campaign and continue to confront Westerners with anything from condescending pity to holier-than-thou smugness.

Finally, he brings in the word "innovative". Being liberal in Canada is hardly being "innovative". It is, in fact, little more than following the herd unaware that the slaughterhouse is just down the road (for all you Easterners out there, that was a reference to cattle; they're the animals that beef comes from). Being conservative in Canada is an innovative position. It generally includes such radical ideas as not stealing money from the public, respecting other levels of government, getting along with the United States, hating terrorists, allowing citizens to vote on issues, and not outlawing the rightful use of weapons.

Thank you, THIS Magazine, for giving me one more reason to be a separatist. When my supposed countrymen are spewing this sort of hateful, moronic babble in my direction, I'm hard-pressed to see any sign of the Alberta-as-boogeyman image dissipating anytime soon. Liberal propaganda has worked its charm, and Alberta has forever become the Frank Burns of the country. We're kidding ourselves if we think we're really still part of Canada at all. We may as well be Hungary to their USSR. Question is, do we wait seventy years for our freedom like the Hungarians did?

Bush recently nominated Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. But it's not Alito's record that's getting the hissy-fits this time; it's that he's a white man.

So are a lot of people. Espeically caucasian males. Doesn't mean they're evil.

But I haven't even gotten to the good part. Here's what an editorialist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had to say:

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

Here is liberal championing of the supposed downtrodden minorities of America, by telling us how blacks are different from other people. Except for the "sellouts", of course. Black Republicans are sellouts, don't you know? They're either evil or stupid for joining our ranks, because we're the ones who'd just as soon have them all back in chains in the cotton fields. That's what this columnist, along with the NAACP and like-minded simpletons, will tell you. So a black conservative on the Supreme Court (or anywhere else) doesn't actually count as being black. God forbid someone ever suggested there was a "mainstream white America"; that comment would rightly be called racist. But "mainstream black America" exists.

Of course, in a room full of conservatives, the whole question just wouldn't arise. We don't care what race you are so long as you can do your flaming job. Personally I like Condi for the next election, and that opinion wouldn't change if she was an Asian man, white woman, three-foot green alien or thirty-foot humpback whale.

Although putting a giant aquarium in the middle of the White House would probably take one heck of a zoning change.

Ted Byfield of the Calgary Sun has recently written an incredibly poignant column about the erosion of democracy in Canada, and hits every point perfectly.

"In American politics, that the public should have the final say goes without saying," he says. "In Canada, every expedient is invoked to prevent this from happening."

He quotes an editorial arguing against a gay marriage referendum: "We do not want to be ruled by the mob."

"Who is 'the mob'?" Byfield asks.

Answer: the uninformed, the unenlightened, the majority. The Canadian government is not made up of ordinary people, you see; it is made up of Those Who Know What Is Right and Those Who Know What Is Best and Those Who Know More Than You Do.

Our government believes that democracy is dangerous. The majority of Canadians cannot be trusted to make good decisions, so decisions should be made for them. The scariest thing is that so many Canadians believe that Father Canada does indeed know best. And so Ontarians continue to elect Liberal governments and gleefully watch their freedoms flush down the toilet because The Enlightened are looking out for us all.

The citizens of Germany in the 1930s wanted a stronger, more prosperous nation, and weren't all too preoccupied with watchdogging their government so long as things kept moving along smoothly. They handed their country and their very existences over to Adolf Hitler without a second thought because he and the National Socialist Party represented Those Who Know Better. And when they found themselves in the middle of a stronger, more prosperous Germany that wanted them all oppressed, killed, imprisoned, or used as cannon fodder, they had no right to be surprised.

"So this is how liberty dies," Senator Amidala remarks in the latest Star Wars film; "With thunderous applause."

Our government believes that oligarchy is the right way to run a country. It's better than democracy because the more plebeian among us can't be trusted to make Proper Choices. And once they get over that annoying little "constitutionally required general elections" problem, then our country will readily turn into the socially and morally correct haven that it could be if we common folk would just give up on the whole free will thing.

Forget Nelson Mandela; the next person to be made an honorary citizen of Canada should be Aldous Huxley.

After all, he wrote our government's handbook.