am I blue

November 4, 2004

Dear disenfranchised, left-leaning Americans:

While meditating on your electoral map, I was struck by what I thought at the time was an unusual idea. But I consulted my superiors and they have instructed me to pursue the matter.

Consider that the geographical integrity of the blue states in which you reside and their proximity either to Canada or to other blue states bordering Canada may provide the solution to your increasing alienation from the rest of your country.

The deep divide in American politics may prove a fortuitous development. I propose you take advantage of what may or may not be a geographical coincidence and allow yourself to be annexed by the Dominion of Canada.

Before formally extending the invitation, the Government of Canada would have to know your intentions are serious. We don’t need another situation like the one that currently exists in Quebec. Each state would have to hold a referendum and a clear majority of electors would have to choose to join Canada. If you’re uncomfortable about the Queen being your head of state, we can fix that. We’re not as fond of her as you might suspect.

Our union and subsequent withdrawal from the British Commonwealth would provide an excellent opportunity for us to print new currency bearing the images of Wayne Gretzky and Michael Dukakis and worth, according to my own calculations, approximately 86 cents on the dollar.

We must insist on retaining the name Canada, an Iroquois word meaning peaceful, beautiful and relentlessly polite. Of course, this arrangement would not be a merger so much as a takeover but you would all be welcome to participate fully in our political process, with the possible exception of Wisconsin.

To avoid bloodshed, something that your current Head of State seems to enjoy, we are prepared to offer, in exchange for all the blue states, the province of Alberta, which contains most of our oil and all of our most strident conservatives.

We would also offer Quebec, in a heartbeat, but that would raise suspicion that the whole plan was an elaborate ploy to simply unload our problems on someone else and it’s not. We are very serious.

Our operatives tell us that for some time now, youngsters in Minnesota and Michigan have been playing ice hockey with almost as much skill and enthusiasm as Ontarians and Manitobans. It is therefore in our national interest to annex you at this time. The Russian bear is only sleeping and the Finns are unpredictable.

As a sign of good faith we pledge to not use our newfound military might to invade Alaska, although that’s always been a bit of a sore spot with us.

However, once we have the United Nations headquarters located securely within the borders of Canada, we’ll make sure your former country pays its membership dues or it’s out.

There will of course be some adjustments. For example, our laws are different. We don’t have misdemeanors; we have summary offences, like jaywalking, littering and drug trafficking.

Furthermore, we’re not at all sure we want Arnold what’s-his-name to stay on as the Premier of California. Recall elections are not in our nature. We would have to work that out.

On the other hand, we will not compel you to spell honour or colour the way we do. Canadians believe in celebrating our cultural differences.

As for Washington D.C., we don’t think this would present an insurmountable problem. The Republicans may even appreciate an excuse to move their capital to Kansas.

And our preliminary analysis indicates that the prospect of fewer Democrats voting against Jeb Bush in 2008 would be received favourably by your current administration.

The situation would require inevitable compromises on both sides but if you can get used to our strong beer, we promise to relax our gun laws.

We don’t want you to feel overwhelmed by the change. We can make further accommodations on such items as our national animal. Rather than the beaver or the eagle, allow us to suggest - the beagle.

A few miscellaneous rules are beyond negotiation:

In Canada, capital punishment is a no-no. Anyone caught executing a prisoner will be charged, tried and convicted – but not executed.

In Canada, gays and lesbians get married, adopt children, teach elementary school and run for public office. Heterosexuals are also encouraged to participate in society.

In Canada, a quarterback only gets three downs to move the ball ten yards but they are actual yards, not metres, so it’s not as difficult as you probably imagined.

In Canada, we don’t worry so much about the separation of church and state. You can pray pretty much wherever you want provided you do so in a peaceful, orderly fashion and excuse yourself afterward as if you had burped.

And this may be a more recent development but, in Canada, it is now customary to laugh with, rather than at, Newfoundland. What you do with New Jersey is your own business.

In conclusion, we believe this arrangement would be of mutual benefit. You get universal healthcare. We get Hawaii.

Aloha,

Huckleberry Finnegan
International Liaison
Department of -CLASSIFIED-
Government of Canada

posted as comment on Hairshirt

I enjoy your blog very much and you seem like an astute fellow so I have a couple questions for you.

The conventional wisdom suggests that most Americans believe John Kerry beats George Bush on every issue except national security. But Kerry enjoys tremendous support in both New York City and Washington D.C. Is it possible that voters in the two cities that were attacked on September 11, 2001 have not examined the issue of national security as closely as the rest of the country? Isn’t it more likely that they have examined the issue of national security more closely than anyone else and come to different conclusions? I think your party’s campaign ought to highlight this.

As the election approaches, I understand that residents of Manhattan and D.C. live under an orange security alert as opposed to yellow in the most parts of the U.S. If these citizens are satisfied with or even prefer John Kerry’s national security credentials, shouldn’t the Kerry campaign be making that point to the rest of America?

I recognize that regional antipathies exist in the United States and that Republicans are more prone to exploit them but wouldn’t Americans in the South or the Midwest respect the assessment of the people who A. suffered most from the terrorist attacks and B. continue to live under a greater threat of future terrorist activity?

Or is the oft-repeated sentiment that George Bush makes America safer just code for something more sinister?

What say you, Joe?