WHITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1986 PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson Uuï&ia 4, ITHE rIWr! CROW'S NEST 5 by Michael Kne Il This is going to be another of those columns that isn't about Whitby. Yet when I think about it, it is about Whitby in a very basic, fundamental way. Now to the subject matter: My interest was grabbed Monday morning by an interview on CKFM Radio. Now, I don't remember the names (I suppose I should have written then down but I was busy at the time) but the reporter was interviewing an American defense expert on the renewing of the NORAD Treaty between Canada and the United States. For the last 25 years or so, Canada and the U.S. have undertaken a common and joint defense of North- America. The primary thrust of the initiative is the airborne defense of the continent from incoming missiles and long range bom- bers from the Soviet Union. Some of the peaceniks and uninformed do-gooders in this country have been attempting to pressure the Wonder Boy from Baie Comeau not to renew the NORAD agreement because it might involve Canada in S.D.I. -commonly known as 'Star Wars'. Well, this is going to sound a little strange coming from your friendly neigh- bourhood liberal (notice there's no big 'L'). I am in favor of Canadian par- ticipation not only in the research of, but in the operation of, S.D.I. And for a very selfish reason - survival. It seems to me that the basic purpose of any defense system is to cause the enemy to think twice before firing that first missile at you. Well, if we can build something that will destroy Russian missiles over Russian territory, that would be enough to discourage the outbreak of hosilities. There is another reason for my support of S.D.I. and continued Canadian in- volvement not only in NORAD but in NATO and the Commonwealth defense plans as we'l. Gwynne Dyer noted in his latest CBC documentary - In Defense of Canada - that if the big boys decided to get playful and start throwing bombs at each other, the odds are a good many of then are going to land in the True Nor- th Strong and Free. In fact, the anti-missile defenses of both the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. are designed to destroy the other missiles over Canada, in an effort to protect the domestic population. In the event of war, Canada will become a nuclear wasteland. I'm all in favor of finding any means of persuading the Russians to keep their missiles in their silos or destroying them before they are fired. Let's face it, S.D.I. will probably work. The expert on the radio is confident that S.D.I. technology will work, he believes it will be operational before the turn of the century. There is something else that he pointed out that made a great deal of sense to me. NORAD cannot operate in the long term without S.D.I. and neither could S.D.I. be made to work without NORAD. NORAD's primary job is early detec- tion and warning. What good is military intelligence unless you do something about it. What that means is that the early warning data from NORAD will be fed into the S.D.I. operational computers. Guess what, people. That means whether we (or the peaceniks) like it or not Canada will be involved in S.D.I. I just happen to think that Canada should be intimately involved from day one, because it is the future of our country that we are talking about. Another thing this expert said that I agree with (and he made me angry - not because what he said was insulting but because it was true) is that at the defen- se council table Canada sits in a high chair. For some reason, Canada resists taking a full and equal role in the planning and command of North American defense despite their continual and open invitation of the Americans to do so. And, for the love of God, I'd like to know why. The only reason I can think of is that successive occupants of the Prime Minister's Office have been afraid to overly offend the dozens of so-called peace activists and organizations in this country. Nobody wants to offend these people. But I'm going'to take the chance. The defense of Canada is not something that I want to take lightly, and I damn well don't want my government to do so either.The defense of a country like Canada is not something that we should take for granted or depend for on the good inten- tions of either or the superpowers. The defense of Canada will only be truly successful if it is planned, comman- ded, initiated and implemented by Canadians. That means, when we are mem- bers of an alliance such as NORAD, we do our part, we contribute our share and we take an active, forceful and vital role in that alliance. This is probably what annoys me about the peaceniks and those other bir- dbrains out protesting the testing of the cruise missile and other defense systems. They are not willing to ensure that Canada is part of an alliance that is capable of defending this continent. A prominent Toronto journalist recently wrote in his column that the Americans should be welcome to continue testing the Cruise in Canada - provided that they continued to be duds. What an irresponsible attitude. We live in the nuclear age. That much I don't have to tell you. But just because we face total destruction is no reason for us to abandon our desire or our capability to defend ourselves. So long as we are able to defend ourselves, we will face a hesitant enemy. Those who take a different view of these things will urge that instead of ar- ming ourselves we shouldconcentrate our efforts at the peace table. They are half right. We must always sue for peace. We must always be ready to do that which is necessary to prevent war. That goes without saying. But I would like to leave you today with something that Samual Adams once said: "God grants liberty to those who love it and are willing to defend it." While we must always negotiate for peace we must also be continually able to defend our liberty, and our country. Even if it means making a proper com- mitment to NORAD. WITH OUR FEET UP I write this as the world awaits, daring hardly to breath. Not because the United States and Libya have crossed fire. (Lybia lost, at this writing, 3-0.) Not because alien humanoids have landed in a small town in Alberta and are demanding an audience with Oral Roberts. And definitely not because hundreds of Whitby residents are clogging garden nurseries all over town demanding first bids on the marigold seedlings. No, the world waits this Monday night, suspended for a few hours in time over an annual event called the Academy Awards. Time was the Academy hoopla meant little to me. Used to be I seldom saw each year more than two movies that qualified for awards. If the movies made it to the local theatre before the awards. Fate changed all that, I became part of a family which not only watches each year the Oscars faithfully, but dotes on it. My brother-in-law can name the cast and crew of every nominated movie back to the mid-19th century. I have seen him win a game of the Silver Screens ver- sion of Trivial Pursuit single-handed, in fifteen minutes, capping off the game by naming the Gaf- fer in the original crew of The Christmas Carol. I hate it. Oh sure, there's singing and dancing and stuff. And all the mystery of a game show wrapped up in there. (Will John or Willie or Jane or Sue win the coveted prize?) And I suppose the program itself has a certain appeal, if you like showpiece glitter and sex and pizazz. But the Academy Awards are, after all, nothing more than a marketing venture. Granted, we are today in a marketing society. (A market society is one in which advertising, marketing and political bribes cost more than raw materials, labor and pension contributions.) But the great difficulty I still have is this: many people actually care about this Oscar stuff. Tweren't always so. Time was this traveling medicine show would come around to our village every spring. The owner, five foot two and two hun- dred and thirty pounds, was outweighed only by his wife and the performing bear that was part of the show. Always there was a young man in the show who would either wrestle the bear or marry it. I forget which. So after the young guy wrestled or married the bear, the old fat guy would stand on the end of the trailer and sell patent medicine. ("Good for what ails ya. Good old Doctor Bearkissers Magic Potion. Only two dollars a bottle. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen. Stand aside their kiddies, stand aside.") You may think I make this up, or that I am more ancient than my photo up there. It sounds like something off the old Gunsmoke television show. But thirty and forty years ago wild medicine men still did travel this province, motorized in mobile homes. They showed up each spring, bear and all. Until one spring we kids watched while old Doctor Bearkisser threw the porridge pot at his wife and then, red-faced from too much of his own Doctor Bearkisser's Magic Potion, he shook his fist at the knot of kids who watched at the trailer window. And then the young bear wrestler (or kisser) asked us which way was it to London and he took off hit- chhiking. Without his bride. To my recollection, that was the spring of the last medicine show. Time was, see, when once you saw through the ruse, the game was over. Once you saw that the bear wrestling was a gimmick to sell medicine, why you did your best to see the free show and skip the sale. The only way to do that now is to have a strong desire to see a movie. The best leave the local theatres before you get off the evening shift and you never do get to see them. And then, like last year, the Academy gives all sorts of hardware to a turkey of a movie like Amadeus. (But not the best score!) So you may have noticed I did not watch the Awards this year. That comes from my boyhood ex- perience in show business. I mean, it's pretty hard to take any of it seriously. Once you've seen Doctor Bearkisser throw the porridge pot, you've seen the core of the entertain- ment industry. SEE PG.9