The Truth about American Healthcare

One day after school in Grade 4, we received a call from my big sister, attending college in Massachusetts, that she was very ill and had to see a doctor, as a Canadian citizen in the United States. With a child’s imagination and informed only by the horror stories we Canadians tell each other about American health care, I was sick with terror that my sister would die in some clammy Massachusetts hospital, with cold-faced and cross-armed American doctors in white coats sitting and watching as she crumpled onto the floor and gasped her final breaths, a victim of the American health care system. Of course, my sister was just fine.

And American health care is hardly the cruel, scary system I had been led to imagine.

All Americans over 65, and disabled Americans under 65, are provided health care under a federal government program called Medicare. Low-income Americans, especially those with children or disabilities, receive health care through a state and federal program called Medicaid. Uninsured American children, Americans considered “medically needy”, and American women who are pregnant or have female cancer, all have their health care covered by Medicaid. State and federal government employees, including military personnel, and their families receive taxpayer-funded health coverage. Even non-U.S. citizens over 65 who have lived in the country for at least five years receive partial Medicare coverage.

And regardless of coverage or even citizenship, American hospitals are required by stringent federal law to provide necessary medical attention to anyone who requests it, without consideration to payment. The law goes so far in erring on the side of ensuring treatment that it has become the subject of massive abuse by Mexicans who “heal and run”, crossing the border and appearing at American hospitals, receiving care and then disappearing back into Mexico. One small, 14-bed hospital in an Arizona bordertown lost $450,000 last year treating Mexicans who are using the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment Act as a free health care program.

These are not the programs and laws of a nation that does not care for the health of the needy and vulnerable.

Americans between 21 and 65, in good health, and able to provide for their own health care coverage are responsible for insuring themselves, and even those Americans are eligible for billions in tax deductions.

The American health care system does not remotely resemble the uncompassionate, “you get what you pay for” caricature of it drawn by so many Canadians. American health care is a blind spot in Canadian thinking. The reality is that health care in the United States has been largely socialized since the mid-1960s, as in Canada; The difference is that Canadian health care is universally socialized and uniformly governmental, where in the American system socialized coverage is for those who need it and health care is not a government monopoly.

Contrary to popular opinion on both sides of the border, the United States actually devotes more public spending to health care than Canada. U.S. federal, state, and local health care spending this year will total about $891.3 billion U.S., or $2,993 U.S. for every man, woman, and child in America (about $1 trillion Canadian, $3,500 Canadian per person), compared with Canada’s total public health care expenditure this year of $91.4 billion, or $2,832 per person. We could accuse the United States of inefficiency in its public health care spending, but we can hardly accuse it of stinginess with its health care tax dollars when it outspends even us.

The figure of “40 million uninsured Americans” is often cited as an indictment of American health care, but uninsured does not necessarily mean untreated. Under the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment Act, health care is provided to millions without coverage, public or private. A recent Kaiser Foundation study estimated that uninsured Americans received $40.7 billion U.S. in free health care in 2004, and that federal, state, and local governments assumed $34.6 billion – about 85 percent -- of that cost. As the Kaiser Foundation argues, American governments might consider tacking a few extra billion dollars onto that 34.6 and calling it a new taxpayer-funded program to cover the uninsured.

American health care is not what we think it is. We may prefer our system, but we cannot claim a monopoly on compassion in health care in North America.

Andrew W. Smith, Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia and Tulsa, Oklahoma

Published in The Chronicle-Herald, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Britain’s Forgotten Iraq War

Exactly 50 years before what we think of as the “first” Iraq War, during some of the darkest days of the Second World War, Britain fought a now-forgotten war in Iraq.

The map of modern Iraq was drawn largely by none other than Winston Churchill, in his capacity as British Colonial Secretary in the 1920s. Iraq had historically been Mesopotamia, and for the best part of four centuries before the First World War was a colony of the Ottoman -- Turkish -- Empire. It was in this period that Iraq’s minority Sunnis came to dominate the country, through Turkey’s preference for Sunnis in imperial administrative positions. After the Ottoman Empire’s collapse in the First World War, Iraq fell to Britain under a League of Nations mandate.

In 1930, Britain granted Iraq independence and Iraq guaranteed Britain "all aid, including the use of railways, rivers, ports and airfields," in case of war, which proved to be only a decade away.

By 1941, a militant anti-British and anti-Jewish nationalism had seized Iraq and the Mid East, fomented by a Nazi-allied Palestinian mufti exiled in Baghdad and by Axis grants and propaganda. In April, with Britain reeling across the Mediterranean, a group of fascist Iraqi military officers led by General Rashid Ali al-Gailani and called “the Golden Square” staged a coup, wrenching Iraq from the British sphere. The Rashid Ali regime, like later Iraqi dictatorships, was Sunni. And one of the four “corners” of this “Golden Square” was an uncle and later also father-in-law of then four year-old Saddam Hussein.

The coup had been urged by the radical cleric granted asylum in Baghdad, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini. Al-Husseini was the Osama bin Laden of his day and a Nazi ally. He had led Nazi-financed pogroms in Palestine, armed Muslim radicals, and advocated fascist revolution throughout the Muslim world. For most of the Second World War, he lived in Berlin as a guest of Adolf Hitler, a Nazi radio propagandist for the Middle East, and a recruiter for Balkan Muslim Holocaust units.

As opportunities to assassinate bin Laden in the 1990s were declined by the United States, so it is believed a proposed Jewish assassination of al-Husseini in 1940 was rejected by the British Foreign Office. Today bin Laden is “wanted dead or alive” by the President himself, and later in 1940 an order for al-Husseini’s assassination was approved by Churchill himself. In the event, al-Husseini died of old age in 1974, mentor and uncle of Yassir Arafat.

Rashid Ali, now Prime Minister of Iraq, had attempted to organize anti-British action in Egypt, home to the largest Royal Navy base in the Mid East. He had been in contact with Axis forces in Libya and Greece and with the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy French forces in Syria and Lebanon. He had promised Britain’s bases in Iraq to the Axis. And of course Rashid Ali would redirect to the Axis the Iraqi oil that would help fuel the Allied war effort. Prime Minister Churchill planned an Iraq war.

Churchill’s Mid Eastern Commander-in-Chief, General Sir Archibald Wavell, was hostile to the idea of opening an additional front and not ‘letting sleeping dogs lie’ in Iraq, echoing the more cautious critics of 2003. Wavell and his forces were already occupied in Greece, Crete, and East Africa, but Churchill was Prime Minister and ordered an invasion. Like 2003 and unlike 1991, the object would be regime change.

If the 2003 Iraq War is thought of as effectively unilateral despite the 16-nation invasion force and 49-nation diplomatic coalition, the 1941 war was unilateral in a more literal way. In May of 1941, America would not enter the Second World War directly for another seven months. France was then part-enemy, with Vichy French forces in Syria and Lebanon collaborating actively with the Axis. And the Soviet Union would not be an ally until the German invasion of Russia the following month. Turkey offered to mediate between the new Iraqi regime and Britain, but Churchill understood Rashid Ali to be an inveterate fascist and declared, “There can be no question of negotiation….” Britain would invade Iraq alone, with some Indian and Arab Imperial reinforcements and Iraqi levies and militiamen.

The war itself, as in 1991 and 2003, lasted about a month.

By May 2, over 9,000 Iraqi troops occupied a plateau beside the British airbase at Habbaniya. The British decided to preempt their would-be besiegers, plus the 60-plane Iraqi Air Force outside Baghdad, and launched an air assault at sunrise. As in 1991 and 2003, air power would be decisive. In five days, the British airmen at Habbaniya flew 584 sorties with their 78 outdated biplanes, 8 Wellington bombers, and a couple of Hurricane fighters, and by May 7 the Iraqi Air Force lay in ruins and the besiegers had abandoned Habbaniya. As today, some of the more die-hard Iraqi fighters fell back to Fallujah, but were ultimately flushed out by British forces by May 19.

Fending off Iraqi attackers along the Euphrates River and German and Italian air force contingents dispatched to Iraq, British forces advanced on Baghdad, surrounding it on May 28. The British fed Rashid Ali false intelligence of overwhelming British strength which spurred him to flee, and on June 1 re-established the previous pro-British regime of Nuri as-Said.

On June 2, anti-Jewish riots erupted with all the attendant looting, etc. Unlike 2003, the British adopted a particularly draconian curfew policy, 187 curfew-breakers were killed on sight, and the riots ended, but not before hundreds of Iraqi Jews were slaughtered and thousands injured by Iraqis inflamed by Nazi and jihadist propaganda.

As today, Syria and Iran figured heavily in events in neighboring Iraq. Days after Britain’s victory in Iraq, British and Free French forces attacked the Vichy French colonial government of Syria and Lebanon, and in July established British rule for the duration of the war, to preclude those nations becoming an Axis foothold in the region. In August, Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran and by September replaced the Nazi-sympathizing Shah with an Ally-supporter, guaranteeing Iran’s oil to the Allies and ensuring a physical link between British assets and the Soviet Union.

While the ultimate objective in 1941 was “to get a friendly Government set up in Baghdad,” today the mission is the sweeping democratic reformation of the country, in the hope that this will be a more permanent “fix”, the first of further “democratic dominoes” in the Middle East, and the final English-speaking military intervention in Iraq.

Andrew W. Smith, Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia and Tulsa, Oklahoma

Published in The Halifax Chronicle-Herald

Apologists for Ba'athists and Slave Masters

If we are going to be on the record historically as opposing this Iraq War, then at least let us not also be recorded as Ba’athist apologists. We are slipping toward re-casting Saddam Hussein as some misunderstood moderate and imagining that the effort to democratize Iraq is "subjecting the Iraqi people to suffering far greater than anything Saddam could dish out." But lost among the daily news of Baghdad car bombings was a recent report by the free Iraqi government that to date, 300,000 of Saddam Hussein’s victims have been uncovered in 290 Iraqi mass graves.

WMD stockpiles or no, Saddam Hussein had invaded two neighbouring countries and attacked two others with ballistic missiles, was attacking U.S. and British warplanes patrolling the no-fly zone he had accepted, had expelled UN weapons inspectors he had agreed to allow, had violated 17 Resolutions of the UN Security Council, had used chemical weapons repeatedly over five years killing 30,000, had produced biological weapons and developed nuclear weapons, had jailed, tortured, amputated, and executed untold hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, had created four million refugees, had expelled 100,000 minorities from oil-rich areas and replaced them with Arabs, had destroyed 2,000 Kurdish villages and the wetlands of Iraq’s Marsh Arabs, had imposed religious restrictions on Iraq’s majority Shiites, had abused the UN Oil-For-Food program causing mass malnutrition, had ordered the assassination of a former U.S. President and a Kuwaiti Emir, was openly sponsoring Palestinian suicide bombers, and so on. How much more would Saddam Hussein have had to do before we all agreed he had to go?

And if Saddam Hussein had to go, then how if not by force from outside Iraq? It was thought that a domestic revolt against Hussein in his weakened position immediately following the Gulf War would effect a positive regime change from within Iraq, but even then, Hussein crushed the revolt utterly and brutally. UN Security Council Resolutions demanding better behaviour from Hussein's regime were no more than words on papers. Economic sanctions were further depriving the Iraqi people while doing nothing to weaken Hussein's regime, as the UN Oil-For-Food program was grossly abused for the benefit of Hussein and his Western supporters. Intermittent aerial bombings through the 1990s were half-measures which left Hussein untouched in his bunkers. And Hussein was unusually skilled at disposing of any conceivable political challengers, and his heir-apparent sons were generally considered to be more psychopathic than even their father. It took the Iraq War to finally end 35 years of malevolent Ba’athist rule in Iraq.

We have been here before. A century and a half ago, it took the U.S. Civil War to finally free America’s slaves, but we Maritimers opposed that war, damned the abolitionists, and excused the slavery.

In his 1998 book In Armageddon’s Shadow, Greg Marquis writes, "By 1861, Maritimers were not unfamiliar with pro-slavery opinions, and as the Civil War progressed many who opposed the institution in theory began to make excuses for it in practice." "…a New Brunswicker who had lived in the South went so far as to argue that the slaves were comfortable, happy, and loyal…."

When President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in late 1862, "the Novascotian reminded readers that Washington had not gone to war to liberate the slaves."

"Maritime critics of the North delighted in listing…the inadequacies of ‘coloured’ troops in Union service." And "the Novascotian described the New Orleans area in 1864, where thousands of [liberated slaves] had perished from disease and starvation since [Union] occupation. This supposedly proved that the African was unfit for self-government."

Opposition to the Civil War was not without compelling points. By the war’s end the combined death toll was a cataclysmic 558,000. The Lincoln Administration had enacted undemocratic emergency measures such as the suspension of habeas corpus. And the international consensus led by the great powers such as Britain and France was unofficially but decidedly anti-Union. But all this could not undo the earth-shaking achievements of the U.S. Civil War, that it freed the slaves, reunified a nation that would go on to lead the world, and served as a model for future liberation.

Likewise, whatever else may be said of this Iraq War, it has rescued Iraq and the world from Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athism and sparked the most Middle East reform in generations. America, Britain, Australia, Poland, and the other Allies truly have made the world a better place by dismantling Hussein’s regime and establishing a democracy in its wake, and if we will not be counted among the Allies then let us at least be counted among the grateful.

Andrew W. Smith, Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia and Tulsa, Oklahoma

Captain Norm's Second World War -- and Nova Scotia's

We Nova Scotians are accustomed to conceiving the Second World War as something that happened someplace far away, in Europe and Asia and the Mideast, but with our participation in the war and our protrusion into the Atlantic, the war’s edges sometimes extended to our shores.

The evening of May 30 in 1942 was such a time. The SS Liverpool Packet -- formerly the Sonia -- was passing Seal Island off Nova Scotia en route from New York to a Newfoundland air base, laden with massive power generators, vehicles, tires, etc. The Packet’s captain was Nova Scotia’s own "Captain Norm", hero of the First World War.

Captain Norman Emmons Smith -- born in 1880 at Woods Harbour, Nova Scotia and at sea by the age of 12 -- had captained munitions ships in the First World War, managing an impossible 42 Atlantic crossings. Variously nicknamed "Captain Norm", "Dynamite", and "Iceberg", he was as near invincible as any mariner in Nova Scotia’s maritime history.

Captain Norm’s ship Ruby on its return from a delivery to France caught the eye of a German U-boat. Spotting torpedoes swimming for his broadside, Captain Norm swung Ruby around end-to, shrinking the target, and the torpedoes passed narrowly without detonating. The German submarine then surfaced and "shot away" Ruby’s smokestack and mast, but Ruby outran the sub and made it back to port above-water.

On December 4 of 1917 Captain Norm had departed Halifax Harbour for Europe carrying a cargo of TNT; it was all of two days later that another munitions ship, the Mont Blanc, collided and caught fire in the harbour, and the resultant Halifax Explosion killed 2,000 and constituted the greatest manmade explosion before the Hiroshima bomb.

On the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, Captain Norm had enlisted as a captain in the Merchant Marine once more, aged 59. He was given command of the Belle Isle, establishing and supplying weather and radio stations on Greenland whose advance forecasting for Allied operations in Europe was life-and-death: Allied counter-intelligence saw to it that Germany couldn't know the where of the D-Day landings, and as to the when, Germany was confounded by a forecast from Greenland of a break in a storm, for the 6th of June. Captain Norm crossed the Atlantic in the second war as he had in the first, and not infrequently without convoy protection, as when his ship was slower than the slowest allowed in convoy.

Captain Norm was in the middle of a solo supply run that evening of May 30 in '42. His 3,000 ton Liverpool Packet was making its top speed: 8 knots. At 8:45, the Packet was a dozen miles off Seal Island and only 30 miles from Captain Norm’s native Woods Harbour when an undetected German U-boat slammed a torpedo into its broadside. The torpedo tore through the entire engineroom, killing the two firemen instantly and blasting such a hole as to render the Packet unsalvageable. Inside of five minutes, the Packet would be altogether underwater. The lifeboat was launched and some of the men scrambled aboard, while others jumped and swam clear of the sinking ship and its deadly drag.

After the Packet’s survivors had been collected in the lifeboat, the German sub surfaced. Its crew emerged and trained their guns on the Packet men, half-dressed but no less dangerous. The German captain demanded to know Captain Norm’s destination and cargo. Captain Norm was uncommonly bold and brave even by the standards of a courageous age, but with neither weapons nor ship and responsible for 17 now-helpless crewmen whom the Germans might kill as easily as not, he gave up the information, which blessedly was not critical military intelligence. The U-boat then disappeared and the lifeboat rowed for land.

Before they had got far, the Packet’s survivors heard calls for help from what turned out to be the first mate. He had been thrown by a secondary explosion some 25 yards, and made a life-preserver of the lid of a wood crate. That 19th survivor was crammed into the lifeboat and it restarted for shore.

The Liverpool Packet hadn't been the first ship to be torpedoed just off Nova Scotia in the Second World War, and it wouldn't be the last. Not three weeks earlier, the Kitty’s Brook had been torpedoed about 40 miles off Lockeport. Two ships in three days were torpedoed off Neils Harbour that October: the Waterton, about 40 miles off, and the Caribou, about 50. The Caribou attack was particularly heinous, that ship being a passenger ferry and its losses numbering 137. A couple years later in 1944 the Watuka was torpedoed 35 miles off Little Harbour, and the Nipawan Park was torpedoed about 30 miles off that same point as late as January of '45, just months before war’s end.

As for Captain Norm, he carried on at sea for two years after the war, which he outlived by 24 years. From the Arctic to the Mediterranean, in two world wars, the only torpedo to sink Captain Norm came 30 miles from his Nova Scotia hometown.

The Manchurian Canadian

Mark Steyn -- the greatest, most versatile, and most prolific columnist in the English-speaking world -- alludes incidentally in his latest Spectator column to China's push to acquire Canadian natural resource assets.

China's state-run Minmetals recently proposed to purchase Noranda, Canada's largest mining interest and one of the world's larger producers of copper, nickel, and zinc. Two other Canadian mining concerns, Inmet and Teck Cominco, have also become the subject of Chinese designs. Only days ago, China's state-controlled National Offshore Oil bought one-sixth of Alberta's MEG Energy. And Chinese National Offshore Oil and two other Chinese state oil interests, Sinopec and PetroChina, are angling for further Abertan oil assets.

While Canada's anti-American conspiracy theorists are issuing crackpot missives to letters to the editor pages, wildly prophesying an American invasion of Canada to secure, of all things, water, China has been working to gain control of Canada's largest resource interests. If our wild-eyed, conspiracy-minded anti-Americans were truly concerned about control of domestic resources, their letters would be warning against China.

America is Canada's next-door neighbor and sister nation, its largest trading partner, its only remaining defense in the world, and its very kit and kin, while China is militantly nationalistic, overtly imperialistic, radically divergent and politically Communist, violently suppressing political and religious freedom. Furthermore, when an American business buys assets in Canada or elsewhere it is doing so as an independent, private enterprise; In the case of China, businesses like Minmetals are state-run, so that any assets bought by such an operation are controlled directly by the Chinese government. And then there's China's forced one child per couple policy, one result of which has been that many Chinese couples abort or put up for international adoption until they have a son, and a society in which there are many, many more men than women is not likely to produce particularly pacifist policies.

Steyn also notes that the Canadian government bizarrely continues to donate tax dollars to China for "foreign aid". In fact, the Canadian International Development Agency, Canada's federal foreign aid department, contributes more to China than to any other nation. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said as recently as last December, "No longer can China be considered simply an emerging market; it has established itself as a world power," and yet he and his government continue to consider China the top foreign aid case of the Canadian taxpayer. As a rule of thumb, if one considers a nation to be a "world power", and if that nation's state enterprises are proposing to buy out one's own largest companies, it is probably safe to strike the nation from one's roll of welfare beneficiaries.

Erring on the Side of Life

Paul Schneidereit has a thoughtful column on the Terri (Schindler) Schiavo case in today's Halifax Chronicle Herald. As ink is still being spilt on this, I'll offer my own belated thoughts on the matter.

I am for better or worse intensely political, but politics did not inform my opinion on this issue. Right and wrong seemed so apolitical and axiomatic to me that I naively imagined 90 percent of the population would see Terri's case exactly as I did. In the absence of instructions to the contrary from Terri herself, there simply was no good reason to extinguish the life of this innocent, healthy, and beloved woman.

Terri was not ill, terminally or otherwise, and she was not in pain, chronic or otherwise. She did not require a pacemaker, respirator, or dialysis machine: Her heart, lungs, and liver worked perfectly. She was not in a coma, she was plainly responsive, and most importantly, she was no "vegetable" to those who knew and loved her best.

Terri had of course never properly declared her wishes for such a tragic eventuality; If she had, and had chosen death for herself, those of us who supported life would have respected her wishes and the case would never have become a national and international issue. It is more than a little disconcerting that a court could determine that Terri wished to die based on hearsay testimony from her supposed husband, Michael Schiavo, and his brother and sister, some seven years after Terri was incapacitated.

Schiavo pursued other women and ultimately got engaged and had two children, which is reasonable enough under the circumstances, but that he then continued to claim sole legal guardianship over Terri as her supposed husband, and that the courts continued to recognize him as Terri's husband and sole master, is offensive.

Only months after being awarded $600,000 in Terri's malpractise suit, Schiavo began his mission to deprive Terri of everything that a few willing judges would permit. He refused therapies for Terri, ordered that she not be treated for infection, rejected Terri's parents' pleas to be granted guardianship, refused new testing for Terri including swallowing tests, ordered that she not be taken into the outdoors and fresh air, and much more.

Terri's mother, father, brother, and sister all wanted Terri's life preserved and had offered to assume full responsibility for her. They wanted her to have the benefit of tests, therapies, attention, and love which had been denied by her supposed husband and guardian.

The President and U.S. House and Senate had ordered the federal courts, under Article 3 of the Constitution, to consider Terri's case de novo -- hearing all evidence, rather than restricting inquiry to the ever-diminishing circles of the findings of previous courts -- but the federal courts clearly did no such thing, rejecting a specific, constitutional order of the elected branches of government.

And if the protracted, two-week death of an innocent American by forced dehydration and starvation does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment", then the term has no meaning. We accord much more humanity to condemned serial killers and rabid dogs.

My sense of humor is not overly genteel, but I found some of the commentary on Terri's case horrifying. Even one blogger and highly-respected columnist I formerly linked to made great sport of mocking Terri's efforts to speak. That's not libertarian, conservative, or leftist; That's cruel.

I suspect -- and indeed hope -- that much of the support for Terri's death was based on false presumptions that she was terminally ill, in incessant pain, in a coma, or living by machine. Surely many who supported Terri's death were projecting much bleaker circumstances -- possibly from the experiences of their own loved ones -- onto Terri, in the absence of fuller information. One Herald letter to the editor which positively rejoiced that Terri had finally died, and went so far as to invoke God as the resolution of the jubilation, stipulated falsely that Terri required life support to breathe. Surely many were assuming that hers was one of those much clearer cases in which death actually can be for the best. And no doubt many could have known little or nothing of the more disturbing elements of Michael Schiavo and Terri's severe deprivation.

That may explain some of the support for Terri's death, but clearly not all of it. Some were driven to want Terri dead by their political hatred of those who took the lead in supporting Terri's life, in exactly the same way that some have come to support Islamic terrorists and fascists out of hatred for the leaders in the struggle against them. Some supported death for Terri because they have come to regard the preservation of such helpless, innocent human life as a step on the "slippery slope" toward social policies they oppose. And then there are some who wanted Terri dead because they are enamored with euthanasia and saw Terri's case as a potentially useful precedent. No doubt some also assumed the case for death must have been sound simply because the courts seemed to sign off on it, but court support for Terri's death resulted from the confluence of judicial refusal to contest lower-court findings of fact, and a lower court presided over by a judge (Greer) who found in Michael Schiavo's favor far too consistently to have possibly been impartial.

As for politics, it would be surprising if this case was very much on the minds of many American voters when they cast ballots again in a year and a half, and then in three and a half years. In that time, many other issues of greater and lesser magnitude will doubtless come and go, and even 24 hours can be a very long time in politics: Just consider the transformation from September 10 to September 11, 2001.

President Bush's lowest-ever approval ratings have coincided with his support for Terri's life, and for the President and Congressional Republicans to take any other position on Terri's case would have been bizarrely out of character, so the accusation that support for Terri's life was motivated by base political considerations is not plausible. It is worth noting, though, that there are at least two other contemporaneous drags on the President's popularity which could explain the polling numbers more than any position on Terri's case: The record-high price of oil and the renewed attention to runaway illegal immigration, the President's policy on which is far and away the single greatest point of opposition among those who otherwise support him.

The one group of American voters for whom Terri's case could conceivably be a "single issue" after a year and a half is the one group who saw something of themselves in Terri: The disabled, and possibly also their guardians. Terri's helplessness and dependence on the aid and compassion of others must certainly have struck a chord with disabled people, and the relentless and in some cases even enthusiastic efforts to have her put out of someone else's misery must surely have been disconcerting for them. The efforts to preserve Terri's life came to be supported by disabled people and organizations, even to the point of an amicus brief filing in Terri's defense by no fewer than ten disabled advocacy groups.

Disabled voters have typically favored Democrats overwhelmingly, but in the past two presidential elections they have been trending Republican. The National Organization on Disability reports that disabled voters split their last four presidential votes thus:

1992: 52 percent Democrat, 29 percent Republican
1996: 69 percent Democrat, 23 percent Republican
2000: 56 percent Democrat, 38 percent Republican
2004: 46 percent Democrat, 52.5 percent Republican

It should be noted that Senate Democrats allowed Terri's bill to pass by unanimous consent, 47 of the 100 House Democrats in attendance voted for the bill, and even a couple prominent leftist Democrats -- namely Jesse Jackson and Sen. Tom Harkin -- actively supported the effort to preserve Terri's life.

A new Zogby poll has been released which runs counter to the spate of polls conducted Zogby's poll asked, "If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," and some 79 percent of respondents answered that food and water ought not be denied. That is heartening, although notably Zogby's polls are not quite as reliable as they once were. Zogby was arguably the best pollster in America in the late 1990s, but more recently he has been using experimental polling methods (which is commendable but not yet reliable), his polls have fluctuated markedly, and it seems he has become something more of a poll editor than a pollster, amending his poll's results arbitrarily. This particular Zogby poll may in fact be accurate, and I desperately hope it is, but a grain of salt is in order. If accurate, the poll could be confirmation that most people would have erred on the side of life after all, had they only known Terri's true story.

Dennis Miller distilled Terri's sad case as well as anyone, I think, when he asked how we could say no to a mother who pleads, "I gave birth to her. Let me take care of her."

America More Developed AND Forested

A staggering and vastly under-reported phenomenon is documented wryly in Jonah Goldberg's latest syndicated column, "It’s the End of the World as We Know It......and, yes, I feel fine. As does the U.S.":

...forests are breaking out all over America. New England has more forests
since the Civil War. In 1880, New York State was only 25 percent forested. Today
it is more than 66 percent. In 1850, Vermont was only 35 percent forested. Now
it's 76 percent forested and rising. In the south, more land is covered by
forest than at any time in the last century. In 1936 a study found that 80
percent of piedmont Georgia was without trees. Today nearly 70 percent of the
state is forested. In the last decade alone, America has added more than 10
million acres of forestland.

There are many reasons for America's arboreal comeback. We no longer use
wood as fuel, and we no longer use as much land for farming. Indeed, the amount
of land dedicated to farming in the United States has been steadily declining
even as the agricultural productivity has increased astronomically. There are
also fewer farmers. Only 2.4 percent of America's labor force is dedicated to
agriculture, which means that fewer people live near where the food grows.

The literal greening of America has added vast new habitats for animals,
many of which were once on the brink of extinction. Across the country, the
coyote has rebounded (obviously, this is a mixed blessing, especially for
roadrunners). The bald eagle is thriving. In Maine there are more moose than any
time in memory. Indeed, throughout New England the populations of critters of
all kinds are exploding. In New Jersey, Connecticut, and elsewhere, the black
bear population is rising sharply. The Great Plains host more buffalo than at
any time in more than a century.

And, of course, there's the mountain lion. There are probably now more of
them in the continental United States than at any time since European
settlement. This is bad news for deer, which are also at historic highs, because
the kitties think "they're grrrreat!" In Iowa, the big cat was officially wiped
out in 1867, but today the state is hysterical about cougar sightings. One of
the most annoying tics of the media is always to credit the notion that
human-animal encounters are the result of mankind "intruding" on America's
dwindling wild places. This is obviously sometimes the case. But it is also
sometimes the case that America's burgeoning wild places are intruding on us.
...

Goldberg cites the UN's March 30 "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment". As is to be expected from the title and organization, it is a profoundly pessimistic report which claims the earth is careening toward oblivion and places the blame for this squarely on human development. So how is it that America -- the world's most developed, wealthy, capitalist nation -- is also home to one of the few positive "millenium ecosystem assessments"? And how is it that America's environment has improved so dramatically without correspondingly dramatic government direction and intervention?

America's cities continue to scrape the skies, its suburbs continue to tame the wildernesses, and its population and economy continue to grow by leaps and bounds, but Americans are intruding less and less onto the natural world, largely due to America's technological progressivism and highly-competitive capitalism, which make possible and encourage a phenomenal efficiency. Leftover chips from lumber production are converted to "particle board" sheets, fish are farmed rather than plucked from vast oceans, deserts with ideal crop-growing temperatures and sunlight are transformed by long-distance irrigation into agricultural oases, and so on, all reducing America's demands on the natural world while America moves from strength to strength economically.

In many jurisdictions, especially including my native Nova Scotia, environmentalist efforts are government-driven, restrictive, and anti-development. Environmentalism takes the form of limitations and outright bans on home and business construction, legislative conferring of "sanctuary status" on vast swaths of land to preclude "commercial exploitation" there, prohibitions against spraying lawns for pests or throwing out tin cans and banana peels, etc. Anti-development environmentalism even holds sway at the level of international relations, as Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin recently presumed to "oppose" the U.S. decision to drill for American oil on 0.0001 percent, or 2,000 acres, of the 19,500,000-acre Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.

But the astonishing statistics on re-forestation in the world's greatest economy are the final proof that the best environmental protection is technologically-advanced development, not no development.

The Case for Space in Ballistic Missile Defense

March 7, 2005

If future ballistic missile defense uses space, it will be with good reason.

For a start, ballistic missiles fly through space. The further a ballistic missile must travel, the higher it must fly, and in order to reach a target more than 100 miles away, a ballistic missile must fly to such an altitude that it passes into space.

In the initial or "boost" phase, a ballistic missile must struggle against gravity and the earth's atmosphere, it is burdened by the weight of its fuel, and it trails a long, hot flame behind it, all of which makes the missile slower and more obvious. In boost phase, a ballistic missile is still in one piece; After that, the missile releases its warheads and decoys, greatly mulitiplying the number of targets for any missile defense system. Once the warheads begin their descents, gravity accelerates them by 10 meters per second, every second, and they can reach phenomenally high speeds which again magnify the difficulty of intercepting them. Missile exhaust, which can be detected by heat and light sensors, does not trail descending warheads as it does rockets in boost phase. And debris from a ballistic missile destroyed in boost phase would fall back onto the aggressor's territory, as opposed to a targeted or neutral nation's.

So a ballistic missile is most vulnerable and harmless during the boost phase. But that lasts five minutes at most. If an interceptor must travel half way around the world to catch up to a ballistic missile, then by the time it does, boost phase will be long over. Stationary and mobile BMD radar and interceptors can be distributed widely over land and sea, and aircraft fitted with BMD sensors and lasers can patrol the skies so that, wherever a ballistic missile might be launched, the wherewithal to detect and destroy it would be reasonably nearby. But it is difficult, logistically and diplomatically, to achieve with those systems the sort of coverage necessary to defeat ballistic missile threats during boost phase.

To better ensure that, defense scientists look to space. The most advanced space-based BMD system being proposed is Space-Based Laser, or SBL. A network of 12 to 20 satellites, each equipped with sensors and armed with a laser, would continually orbit the globe on different courses so that at any given moment, at least one satellite would be within range of any possible ballistic missile launch, anywhere on earth. Each satellite would have the ability to both detect and destroy, and would sense a ballistic missile, compute the missile's track, and correct its own laser fire, all so immediately that the missile would be shattered shortly after emerging above any cloud cover. To defeat ballistic missiles during the criticial boost phase, a space-based system would be the closest to failsafe.

Although the use of space for ballistic missile defense has been proposed for at least two decades, space-based systems are still only proposals; The current U.S. BMD system, with which Canada was asked to cooperate, is not space-based.

We have opposed a rudimentary earth-based missile defense system intended to protect against accidental or limited ballistic missile attacks in this age of terrorism, largely out of ostensible concern that it could proceed to space-based missile defenses, and that they could proceed to space weaponry which would give America an unprecedented and unrivalled military capability. But what does America have today if not precisely an unprecedented and unrivalled military capability, and under that aegis the world is moving toward greater and greater freedom. America has today the ability to strike at will, anywhere on earth, and enough firepower to destroy the world 200 times over; Any possible future space weaponry could only update America's existing doomsday arsenal.

Space has of course already been militarized in that satellites orbiting earth today provide military surveillance and targeting for bombing. But space has also already been weaponized in that ballistic missiles use space to enable faster, farther flight, and nuclear warheads in an EMP attack would use the first couple hundred miles of space to generate an electromagnetic pulse to damage or destroy electronics and electrical grids on earth below.

We ought not assume that a ballistic missile attack against America would be America's problem and none of our concern. Even if the effects of an attack could be expected to stop south of the U.S.-Canadian border, our trading partnership is such that Canada would suffer an economic upheaval if an American city were devastated or if America were electronically incapacitated in a ballistic missile strike and the U.S. economy collapsed in its wake. In what is becoming a trend, our natural and historic allies in the English-speaking world -- America, Britain, and Australia, plus Denmark and Japan -- are confronting yet another threat while we wring our hands, though we were not asked even to shoulder a share of the burden. Canada was perfectly entitled as a sovereign state to decide against joining America's missile shield, but it is equally entitled to change its mind.

Andrew W. Smith, Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia and Tulsa, Oklahoma

Published in The Halifax Chronicle-Herald

News Media Doomsaying on Iraq, Afghanistan, and...Germany

January 18, 2005

In January of 1946, as America and its allies were struggling to transform post-war Germany from a Reich into a democracy, an article in Life magazine declared "Americans Are Losing the Victory in Europe", observing that "We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease," and "Never has American prestige in Europe been lower." The Saturday Evening Post sought to explain "How We Botched the German Occupation", commenting that "We have got into this German job without understanding what we were tackling or why." That February, The New York Times reported "U.S. Seen 'Fumbling' Its Job in Germany". And in October, a Collier's Magazine article pronounced "Failure in Germany".

To read such doomsaying, it might almost come as a surprise that Germany has been a peaceful and prosperous democracy for over half a century now. But excessively pessimistic news and commentary is not peculiar to 1946.

On October 31, 2001, The New York Times published a front page article entitled "A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as Vietnam". Just three weeks after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan had begun, the Times report asserted, "Despite the insistence of President Bush and members of his cabinet that all is well, the war in Afghanistan has gone less smoothly than many had hoped," "signs of progress are sparse," "American bombs falling on civilian targets will not win Afghan 'hearts and minds'," and "nor have its tanks made any progress toward Kabul, the capital." Kabul fell two weeks later, and national Afghan elections were held successfully last October.

Shortly after the Fall of Baghdad, news and commentary swirled furiously around a story that provides another case study. On April 14, 2003, PBS's NewsHour claimed, "Largely unstopped by U.S. troops, looters pillaged over 170,000 items from the National Archeological Museum of Baghdad on Saturday, stealing or destroying a priceless collection of artifacts from more than 10,000 years of history." On April 13, Britain's Independent lamented "A civilisation torn to pieces" while Salon went one further on April 17 with "The end of civilization". A New York Times article on April 16 charged that "coalition forces were guarding the Iraqi Oil Ministry building while hundreds of Iraqis ransacked and ran off with precious heirlooms and artifacts from a 7000-year-old civilization."

But on May 1, The New York Times was clarifying that "the losses seem to be less severe than originally thought." On June 10, an article in Britain's Guardian summed up the museum looting story thusly: "the only problem with it is that it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's bollocks." The Iraq National Museum had suffered some looting, but practically all of its 170,000-item collection had been hidden for safe-keeping by the curators before the war; Nearly the entire collection was intact and in the Museum's possession. Of course, the revelation that the bad news was not remotely as bad as initially indicated received considerably less attention than did the bogus bad news.

And while the admittedly abundant bad news from Iraq receives relentless coverage (The New York Times famously featured the Abu Ghraib prison scandal on its front page for 32 consecutive days), the good news rarely rates such prominent mention. And, yes, there is such a thing as good news from Iraq.

The November audio address attributed to Iraq's al Qaeda leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, implicitly conceded defeat, railing against Muslim scholars, "You have delivered us to our enemy." Shiite Grand Ayatolla Ali al-Sistani, arguably the most influential figure in Iraq, has actually issued a fatwa obligating followers -- including women -- to vote. And Iraq's Shiites and Kurds, who combined comprise about 80 percent of the Iraqi people, have remained broadly supportive of the democratization effort.

The IMF has estimated that Iraq's GDP grew by an astounding 52 percent in 2004. The U.S. Agency for International Development has rehabilitated or re-equipped 420 Iraqi health care facilities, immunized three million Iraqi children, renovated 2,405 Iraqi schools, trained 33,000 teachers and school administrators, and produced 8.7 million textbooks. And Canada has contributed to the restoration of Iraq's marshes, drained on Saddam Hussein's orders as punishment for disloyalty by Iraqi Marsh Arabs.

There is undeniably no shortage of bad news from Iraq, and journalists and commentators would be derelict to ignore the steep cost of the Iraq mission. But trumpeting every conceivable setback while dismissing evidence of progress as "delusional pro-war propaganda" is precisely what the insurgents are counting on. Anti-democracy forces in Iraq cannot succeed militarily or electorally. They can however produce a steady supply of terror which can be used in the West and particularly America and Britain as an argument for abandoning aggressive action against Islamic terrorism and fascism. And more immediately, their terrorism and our pessimism could discourage the Iraqi people from participating in their new democracy. If Iraqis make a success of their upcoming national elections, it will have been with little moral support from us.

Andrew W. Smith, Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia and Tulsa, Oklahoma

Published in The Halifax Chronicle-Herald

Missile Defense Against EMP Attack

September 22, 2004
With a single nuclear warhead and a ballistic missile capable of delivering it to the upper ionosphere over the American Midwest, the continental United States could be electronically incapacitated and primitivized by a phenomenon called an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP.
As the "Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack" reported to Congress this July, a "high-altitude" nuclear explosion would generate an extraordinary electromagnetic surge which would overwhelm electric conductors, damaging and destroying electronic devices and the very electrical grids. In an instant, 21st Century society would regress technologically to the 19th Century.
Ironically, experts believe that such a destructive nuclear explosion would have no direct effect on humans, but given our dependence on electricity, the indirect effects could be catastrophic. Airplanes in mid-flight would be stranded with inoperable instruments. Electronic medical equipment including life support systems would fail. America's high-tech military -- although it has taken some steps to immunize its electronics to an EMP -- would be dangerously degraded. Police forces and emergency responders would lose communication abilities. Water utilities would shut down. Modern food production, which depends on electricity to enable 2 percent of the population to feed the other 98 percent, would be incapacitated. Refrigeration would quit. Electrical heating in winter or air conditioning in summer would be useless. Telephone, radio, television, and internet communication would break down. Commercial satellites would be disabled. Financial services from stock exchanges to local banks, which conduct business electronically, would be discontinued, causing innumerable problems and losses. The repercussions of an EMP attack would resemble an apocalyptic nightmare.
Opponents of Ballistic Missile Defense argue that ballistic missiles are not necessarily required for a practically infinite number of attacks including even nuclear attacks, and 9/11 proved that plane tickets and "box cutters" were enough to collapse America's tallest buildings and destroy part of the Pentagon. But an EMP attack would require a nuclear detonation in the ionosphere, and that would necessitate a "delivery vehicle" capable of attaining altitudes of between 25 and 250 miles. Plus which, the radius of the EMP attack increases with the altitude of the nuclear detonation: The higher the nuclear explosion, the wider the electromagnetic pulse. Commercial aircraft have maximum altitudes of about 8 miles; military jets are restricted to about 17 miles; and even cruise missiles have ceilings of about 15 miles. Spacecraft, experimental aircraft such as the scramjet, and ballistic missiles can operate in the extreme low-oxygen altitudes necessary for delivery of an EMP attack, especially a more widespread one. So an EMP attack would in all likelihood be delivered by ballistic missile.
In the debate over Canada's policy on the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense program, the threat of ballistic missile-delivered EMP attack deserves consideration as a matter of Canadian national interest. An EMP attack massive enough to span the continental U.S. could not be expected to halt at the Canadian border, and regardless of the scale of the attack, Canada's economy and way of life are so dependent on the United States, and North American power grids and satellite networks, etc. are so interconnected, that even a localized attack would necessarily have a crippling effect on Canada. In an EMP attack intended for America, Canada would be collateral damage.
BMD is said to constitute a "weaponization of space," but the explosion of a nuclear weapon in the ionosphere would be a true weaponization of space, and BMD is intended precisely to prevent such a thing.
As for the concern that BMD might commence a new arms race, there should also be some concern that the lack of missile defense might allow an EMP attack, particularly given the presumable attractiveness to terrorists of such an attainable means of bringing America to its knees. The U.S. has offered to share missile defense technology with Russia to demonstrate that it has no anti-Russian designs and to help preclude an arms race. And, as BMD presently proposes to defend only against limited attacks such as by rogue elements or stray, accidental launch -- not against the massive missile volleys of a superpower -- the "Mutual Assured Destruction" principle deemed so vital during the Cold War would remain intact, albeit anachronistically.

The notion that a working missile defense system is an impossibility is reminiscent of "If humans were meant to fly, we'd have wings." Successfully defending against ballistic missiles is certainly a challenge, but if America could build a working airplane in 1903 and put a man on the moon in 1969, then it is not beyond the realm of possibility that in the 21st Century it will be able to strike down offensive ballistic missiles.
In any event, as Canada is not being asked to bear the costs and challenges of America's Ballistic Missile Defense project -- let alone sacrifice soldiers -- then at least we can be spared the more usual arguments against Canadian action on defense.
Andrew W. Smith, Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia and Tulsa, Oklahoma

Published in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald

Nova Scotia and the Maritimes on the American Civil War, and Iraq

May 25, 2004

Shocking though it may be to us today, Nova Scotia and the Maritimes chose the Confederacy over the Union in the American Civil War, overwhelmingly and with some enthusiasm.  
In his 1998 book In Armageddon’s Shadow - The Civil War and Canada's Maritime Provinces, University of New Brunswick professor Greg Marquis documents the fervour for the Confederacy and against the Union in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes of that time.
Sam Slick author and former Nova Scotia chief justice Thomas Chandler Haliburton damned the Union for "the ungodly and unchristian way in which they carried on the war…” and "…their utter disregard of all International law.”
The office of a St. Stephen newspaper proprietor who championed the Union was vandalized, allegedly by locals with a preference for the Confederacy. He later moved his paper to Calais in Maine and ultimately joined the Union Army.
Halifax Harbour despite the official neutrality of the Maritime colonies famously sheltered, repaired, supplied, and aided in the escape of the Confederate raider Tallahassee, responsible for destroying or capturing 35 Union vessels. The Tallahassee's captain John Taylor Wood after the war made a home of Halifax, where he became a leading member of the community.
The Class of '65 at their graduation from King's College in Windsor sang "We'll Hang Andrew Johnson from a Sour Apple Tree", Johnson having succeeded Lincoln as president after Lincoln's assassination in April of that year. 
Confederate Major J. Smith Stansbury moved to Halifax in 1864 in ill health, and when he died not long after it was "among friends and sympathizers”; prominent Halifax clergy and citizens joined the funeral procession, and Stansbury was buried in the Camp Hill Cemetery, in the family plot of future Canadian Senator Benjamin Weir.
There were Nova Scotians and Maritimers who took sides for the Union, and some who fought for it: Marquis estimates that 10,000 Maritimers fought in the American Civil War, most of those on the side of the Union. But the Union faction constituted a distinct minority of the general population; Nova Scotia and the Maritimes picked the losing side in the American Civil War. 
Sympathy for the Confederacy for some years must've seemed reasonable enough: Confederate forces had a good run of battle decisions, President Lincoln was much despised, the Union government lost legitimacy for such emergency measures as suspension of habeas corpus, censorship, and mass arrests, etc. But obviously the Union ultimately prevailed, and in hindsight we can scarcely imagine that its victory and rightness ever were in question.
Surely those Maritimers and Canadians unhappy about the Iraq War would object strenuously and understandably to their equation with Confederate sympathizers, and that is not my purpose. It is instead to demonstrate that this is not the first time we have felt strongly about an American war in which we are very largely uninvolved, not the first time we have damned U.S. policy in such a war, and it's just possible it'll be not the first time we come to feel differently about that war. 
It's not venturing too far onto a limb to suppose that a majority of Maritimers and Canadians regard the Iraq War as "Bush's War”, not a war for security and freedom, and regard the arguments for the war as "Bush spin" and not legitimate rationales. But what if Iraq -- however messily -- becomes one of a precious few Muslim nations with true liberty, democracy, and rule of law, rejects reversion to a tyrannical and menacing rogue state, and serves as a positive model for the wider Muslim world?What if Iraq -- along with Afghanistan -- is not some anomalous, tragic misadventure, but the latest in the procession of American-led wars of liberation such as in Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and America's own Confederate states?
While the world fixates on some pictures from Abu Ghraib prison and other such diversions, Iraqis are voting in local elections, an Iraqi Constitution is taking root, freedom of speech and of the press is flourishing, free enterprise is bustling, insurgents are being decimated, hospitals and schools are being constructed, utilities and infrastructure being restored, and so on. 
For the Iraq project to prevail, America need not be perfect, and the Iraqi people need not love America; they need only choose decent, normal life over anti-Western tyranny. And Iraqis now are freed to make that choice.
Canada has every right as a sovereign state to abstain from this Iraq War, just as the United States had every right to abstain from the early years of the First and Second World Wars. But America came to feel differently about the world wars, and we may yet come to feel differently about this one, even if by that time the Iraq War like the Civil War is history. 
Andrew W. Smith, Cape Sable Island, Nova Scotia and Tulsa, Oklahoma
Published in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald

The story of the 14th Colony; What it was, and what became of it

Not long before the Revolution, Britain's Thirteen Colonies in America were joined to their north by a fourteenth: Nova Scotia.

Nova Scotia had been a French colony called Acadia to varying degrees beginning in 1604, but fell fully and finally to Britain with the second capture of the Fortress of Louisbourg in 1758, not two decades before the American Revolution. (Nova Scotia included present-day New Brunswick until 1784, and until 1769 included present-day Prince Edward Island.)

Nova Scotia by the time of the Revolution was not an established, developed commonwealth like the first thirteen, but a fledgling frontier colony being resettled by British subjects, the preponderance of those coming by design from New England. Little Nova Scotia was nonetheless base to a considerable part of the Royal Navy and later an entire regiment of the British Army meant expressly for enforcing loyalty to the Crown, so that the British government had a military influence in Nova Scotia unparalleled in the other colonies. Plus which Nova Scotia was not connected contiguously to the settled centers of those other colonies and was thus estranged from the revolutionary activity to the south.

Which is not to say Nova Scotia saw no revolutionary activity. A stack of hay bound for government forces in Boston was set afire, privateers raided the coasts with some frequency, and locals laid siege to Fort Cumberland, unsupported by the revolutionary Continental Army and thus unsuccessful. But the Nova Scotia Assembly had not dispatched a delegation to the Continental Congress, for the practical reason that the military presence of the Crown prohibited such a movement as that, and absent official Nova Scotian participation in the Continental Congress, then-General George Washington declined support for revolutionary efforts in Nova Scotia. They do say that judgment came to be Washington's greatest regret.

So Nova Scotia was largely left out of the Revolutionary War, and after the American victory and founding of the United States, carried on as a British colony.

Then came the 1860s, when Canada -- referring then to Ontario and Quebec -- looked to construct a counter to the United States on the North American continent, subsume the unhappy union of Upper and Lower Canada into some grander political arrangement, and aggrandize itself generally, and presumed to conscript the smaller British North American colonies into its cause. Nova Scotia wanted no part of this "Confederation", or union with Canada: in the Confederation year of 1867 Nova Scotians elected anti-Confederation candidates to 36 of 38 seats provincially and 18 of 19 seats federally, and 31,000 -- or 65 percent -- of Nova Scotia's electorate signed a petition declaring Nova Scotia's lumping into the Confederation scheme democratically illegitimate. But Nova Scotia was annexed to Canada by the British North America Act of 1867, against its express democratic will. As late as 1886, Nova Scotians elected a separatist provincial government with 26 of 38 seats, but to no avail.

Nova Scotia has been an Indian territory, a French colony, a colony divided between French and British, a British colony, a province of Canada as a British dominion, and a province of Canada as a fully-sovereign European-style state; so long as the world turns, there is no cause for supposing Nova Scotia's present iteration must be its last.