|
An end to freedom is now in sight By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Dec. 24, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. It was 18 years ago this evening, but I still remember the event clearly.
So, there I was, sitting in the dayroom with the handful of others who also stayed on base, moping and mindlessly watching television. And then it happened. A special news report broke into the programming, live from Moscow. What we saw on the squadron’s old 27-inch TV were thousands of jubilant Russians celebrating in Red Square as the hated red hammer and sickle flag of the now dead Soviet Union was lowered for the last time. It took a moment for what we were watching to sink in, since we had all been raised on a steady diet of the indomitability of the world’s leading communist state. But by the time the new Russian flag was hoisted over the Kremlin, we realized what had happened — we had just won the Cold War. Considering our ages and the fact we were in the military, our response was pretty typical. After all, the words of our training sergeants telling us if we didn’t master our rifles Ivan wasn’t going help us master them was still ringing in our ears. Couple that with growing up in the ‘80s watching “Red Dawn,” “The Day After” and “Amerika,” our feelings of victory were privately joined with a sense of relief. The war for Europe wouldn’t happen, and — at the time — a nuclear holocaust no longer felt inevitable. But the events of that December evening had a much deeper meaning — one I did not fully grasp at the time. The fall of the Soviet flag, along with the fall of the Berlin Wall just two years before, symbolized freedom coming to millions of people in Eastern Europe and Asia after decades of communist domination that had cost millions of lives. In the early ‘90s, the future seemed bright and optimistic, but now, it appears freedom may be slipping from our grasp. In its annual “Freedom in the World” report, the Washington-based think tank Freedom House found that the increase in free peoples appears to be leveling off, if not actually decreasing. In the report, the group that judges countries on political rights and civil liberties pointed out that free nations of the world have increased from 60 to 89 since 1988 — a 10 percent increase in 20 years. However, the bulk of that jump was between 1988 and 1998, and since then, only one nation has become free. Setting the stage for a further slowdown in the growth of freedom was the Copenhagen climate conference, which wrapped up last weekend with a framework for so-called greenhouse gas emission reduction standards and a draft mechanism for enforcement. It is true the agreement falls far short of a legally-binding treaty and only a handful of nations actually signed on to it, but the mere fact it got that far amidst growing public skepticism about the legitimacy of man-made climate change is troubling, pointing to the shear devotion of its adherents. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, called climate change an “irrational ideology.” “We’ll be the victims of irrational ideology. They will try to dictate to us how to live, what to do, how to behave, what to eat, travel, and what my children should have,” Klaus said last Friday. “This is something that we who lived in the communist era for most of our lives — we still feel very strongly about [it].” While some critics may dismiss Klaus’ views as unnecessarily alarmist, it appears some people would be willing to submit to such a regime. Also last Friday, I received an anonymous comment about one of my earlier columns chastising my view on the climate debate. Normally, I pay no mind to faceless criticism, but this one was illustrative: “Surely you have to agree that environmental destruction by mankind is an issue. I’m not advocate of bigger, more intrusive government, but sometimes we do need big brother (sic) to guide us when we are otherwise too stupid to recognize our shortcomings.” I’m not surprised this was submitted anonymously. If I held this view, I wouldn’t want to put my name to it either. For the record, I do not agree that “environmental destruction by mankind” is an issue, since I believe the planet and its environment are far more capable than we give it credit. But that’s beside the point. The author may or may not subscribe to this point of view and may have simply been trying to be contrarian — after all, the statement is self-contradictory. However, statements like the abovementioned portray a permissive attitude to policymakers, giving them the cover they need to whittle away at our freedoms in the name of saving the planet. Add to it a media that promotes the same ideology while providing increasingly perverse, explicit and voyeuristic entertainment as a distraction, it’s no wonder our liberties are slowly being eroded away. A global emissions treaty may seem as far away as Copenhagen, but a more intrusive government may be closer then we think. Already, the Environmental Protection Agency has deemed carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and government officials have threatened to use dictatorial powers to cut emissions if Congress doesn’t act. Such attitudes, if realized, would move us from being free citizens of the planet to subjects who exist to serve the planet — and it’s self-appointed protectors. It could also mean that we may see our beloved Stars and Stripes lowered for the last time, replaced with a tyrannical green. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
I was halfway through my second year in the U.S. Air Force and stationed in Texas. I was also stuck in Texas for the holidays, as I had too little money and too little leave to fly back to Michigan for Christmas.
