September 22, 2003

NEED HELP PACKING?

Can we Democrats be your next province? (PAUL LEWIS, Sep. 22, 2003, Globe & Mail)

Having endured the outrages of the 2000 presidential "election" and the 9/11-empowered Republicans' reactionary policies, progressive Democrats, Greens and Independents across the United States are smouldering. Especially in the 20 states that went for Al Gore in the Northeast, Midwest, and West, more and more of us are appalled by the combination of dishonest rhetoric, regressive tax giveaways, international adventurism, environmental degradation and unprecedented arrogance spewing from the President and his congressional cohorts. [...]

We're fed up and need to move on -- or out. But where to go?

A map of the state-by-state voting in 2000 suggests the obvious answer. With the anomalous and proud exception of New Mexico, Gore states are contiguous either to Canada or to other Gore states. In the most peaceful and democratic way, without invoking images of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, these states need to secede from the Union, reform into provinces and join Canada. [...]

Imagine the efficiencies of scale that will result from combining several states, with their redundant and quarrelsome governments, into single provinces. Through a process of state-by-state referendums, California, Oregon and Washington could reform into Naturia; New England (minus the odious New Hampshire) could reform into Nontario; Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Iowa, Michigan, and Illinois could become Coolcentria; while the eastern states between New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., could become Atlantica.

On purely aesthetic grounds, the benefits are enormous. We new Canadians will (shortly) acquire a national leader capable of producing coherent sentences in at least two languages. We will leave behind a U.S. composed of increasingly polluted semi-tropical and desert states inhabited by citizens hell-bent on posting the Ten Commandments in public washrooms, installing a Star Wars defence system around fast-food restaurants, and generally doing what they can to bring on the Apocalypse. Meanwhile, we new Canadians will look north to vast, undeveloped lands where animals roam and cool breezes waft down from the Arctic. Henceforth, our musically challenged children will sing not the incomprehensible and operatic Star Spangled Banner but the rousing anthem O Canada.

And just imagine what it will be like not to wake up every morning to the news that your federal government has subverted another international treaty, undermined another environmental protection, given another tax refund to the wealthy or invaded another defenceless country. To be citizens once more of a nation at peace with the world and committed to social justice and environmental conservation.

Ah, America.

O, Canada!


Canada's welcome to the Democrats, but we're keeping the territory--it's our Manifest Destiny, don't you know...

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 22, 2003 9:10 AM
Comments

As has been pointed out before, Canada has become what the Leftists want the US to become, so why does Canada close its borders to the one group of people which would fit in and not demand any changes in the culture? Considering that this has become "Ashcroft's America", Leftists should be asking for and receiving asylum by the thousands every day. (And they'll become good little Liberal Party voters, too.)

We'd also find once again out that even if given the chance, Leftists prefer to whine about how horrid things are than to seize an opportunity given to them to make things better for themselves, and by extension, for the rest of us.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 22, 2003 9:41 AM

The lazy left won't go north - too cold and no beaches.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 22, 2003 9:43 AM

Advocating the breakup of the republic? When do we get to start shooting them?

Posted by: some random person at September 22, 2003 10:12 AM

SRP: As a Southern boy, might I suggest "now"?

Secession, no matter how "peaceful," is by definition a violent act, and the sovereign is within its rights to bring its full might to bear to rectify the situation. 'Twas so in 1861, it's so now.

Posted by: Chris at September 22, 2003 11:41 AM

What's the opposite of "Odious"? How can
polution be increasing as the country de-industrializes? Does Canada actually have
higher environmental standards?

The left glorifes the semi-arid and sub-tropical
third world, why demonize whole regions of the
country for belonging to a bio-climatic zone?

Posted by: J.H. at September 22, 2003 11:41 AM

Can we have Alberta in trade?

After all it has all that lovely O...I...L...

Posted by: Sandy P. at September 22, 2003 12:04 PM

Sandy:

We'll consider it if you'll give us the odious New Hampshire in exchange.

Posted by: Peter B at September 22, 2003 12:21 PM

This is a very funny piece, because, of course, it's CANADA'S fate to join the US.

Thus, liberals who head North, to escape the US, will find themselves rejoining the Union at some point, if they live long enough.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 22, 2003 12:45 PM

Michael:

Spoken with all the fervant conviction of a fundamentalist predicting the Judgment Day. You could be right, of course, but you have been making this prediction since, oh, about 1776. Whence cometh your certainty? I know Raoul has invasion plans. You too?

Posted by: Peter B at September 22, 2003 1:08 PM

Hey, liberals--TAKE OFF, EH!

On a slightly-more-serious note, how's this modest proposal: the US would agree to export all our liberals to Canada if Canada will agree to stop exporting their rude, cheap, fussy, slow-moving geriatrics to Florida...

Posted by: Will Collier at September 22, 2003 3:10 PM

Invasion plans? Are you kidding?

I'd rather set the standards high before letting in the riff-raff. Otherwise we will end up with half-a-dozen Puerto Ricos and one Haiti to our north, and has been pointed out, they won't even have the advantage of sunny beaches...

On the other hand, instead of shipping all their geriatrics to Florida, why doesn't Canada just make Cuba a province? Politically they have a lot in common.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 22, 2003 3:39 PM

Up here, we have a more demanding and restrictive immigration system than you. We'd never accept your left-wing "masses yearning to breath (un)free".

Posted by: Patrick H at September 22, 2003 4:11 PM

Just re-read this article. First time I've ever seen the verb "wafting" used to describe Arctic winds. First time I've ever seen our national anthem described as rousing. Firt time in a long time I've seen someone yearn to live in our undeveloped north "where the animals roam.'

Hey, let's stop squabbling and let it happen. It may wreak us, it may wreak you, but it is just TOO beuatiful to pass up.

Posted by: Peter B at September 22, 2003 9:39 PM

Who will pay for the fence around our "odius New Hampshire?" And how soon may we begin building it?

Posted by: genecis at September 23, 2003 3:31 PM
« INCENTIVIZING PROLIFERATION: | Main | OF A TYPE: »