Zombie Attack

The infection began in Alberta. It may have had foreign roots, but we have always had borders and for more than two and a half centuries demonstrated an immunity to the viler political discourse of those nearby. The first wave spread quickly to neighbouring provinces, then stopped, apparently held in check by a natural resistance in the older, provinces. Places where the malaise had run its course in years gone by seemed less vulnerable. But in the end, lacking any defensive procedures, its persistence got the better of us. The whole country found itself with a mild form of the infection.

Four years later, the full blown epidemic surprised many. The zombies took control.

In retrospect we should have seen it. If vitriol and lies were not enough. the mindless singularity of purpose was as clear a red flag as could be waved. Clearly the uninfected among us could have self-diagnosed and found some form of prescription. Even if it tasted like Buckley's™.

But, like the smiling blondes in many cinematic versions, we believed the nice people next door were fine despite the red eyes and open sores and, hoping for the best, invited them in. Or we simply locked ourselves in, not venturing from home to poll.

Few neighbourhoods were spared. Different from flu epidemics, the oldest and youngest among us, the culturally self-quarantined Quebec and Newfoundland, were less susceptible, as were many of the areas generally ignored by the majority.

These disease-resistant pockets do offer some hope a cure may be found before the last of us loses the battle and Canada as we know it withers and dies.

Where are the Unions?

Alberta raised the minimum wage.

But does the province with the most offer the most? Not by a long shot. The changes for most workers brings Alberta from 12th of 13 to 10th.

Worse, there are two distinct classes of workers in Alberta. Persons who serve alcohol - waitresses and waiters in licensed establishments - get 35 cents per hour less.

If one's career is in the only occupation where an employee is legally and financially responsible for a customer's own stupidity, then one earns less.

Where's the logic in that?

Stop the "Bail Out" corporate welfare

This "bail out" is complete nonsense - another Bush 'wolf'!! What's with these "experts" like Ben Stein going on that the U.S. was founded on 'capitalism'. It wasn't. The Constitution starts "We the people..." not "We the corporations", nor "We the piles of gold". The intent was individual free enterprise and opportunity for all, not enslavement to the moneyed few hiding behind imaginary legal constructs.

Now the same twits that foam at the mouth about personal responsibility when someone suggests a disadvantaged citizen should have a shot at an education or medical care, are all lining up to donate tax dollars to people who have neither personal responsibility nor any real accountability.

These are the same babies that decide that drug companies don't have to pay when they kill people; that tobacco companies aren't really responsible for thousands of deaths per year - one every 6 seconds; and "we the people" have to either live with or clean up the messes left by big oil and big nuclear.

Get a grip, people. Very little of Reagan's "trickle down" trickled down and there is absolutely no reason to shove $700 billion back up to them. Make the upper 10% of these companies' executives lose everything like most of the former homeowners who were talked into bad mortgages. And I mean everything. Lose their houses, their yachts, their Beemers and their pensions. Put the beggars out onto the street and tell them to accept a bit of personal responsibility. "Get a job", as the Republicans would say.

Bankers and their screwball "enterprises" going broke? Welcome to the world the rest of us live in.

Why Sarah Who?

To understand the Republican pick for Vice President - and it is clearly a party pick not a McCain pick - one must understand Republican 'family values'. Values that completely ignore women as thinking human beings.

The McCain campaign, and the Senator himself is completely controlled by Rove & Company, the same people who put 'W' in the White House and Dick Cheney in Rasputin's place in Washington. And why not? They have proven themselves able to insert people in the Oval Office regardless of the trivial details involved in elections.

Rove & Company knows what most Americans should realize: The only chance John McCain has of surviving the next four years is an Obama Presidency. Even 'W', completely disconnected from the average American, unconcerned and with more days off than any previous President has aged twenty years in the last eight. Anyone who thinks the Office won't kill John McCain is dreaming.

Should McCain become President, when Governor Palin becomes President Palin, Rove & Company think they will be in complete control of the country. Simply because they believe a woman must do what a man tells her to do.

It's clear from their disdain for Hillary's supporters the neo-cons are certain Hillary's only connection to her supporters is gender. They do not consider it possible she thinks. Republican's find Palin 'cute', perhaps even 'feisty'. After all she's just a girl.

Commanders-in-Chief

The framers of the U.S. Constitution set the role of Commander-in-Chief in the Office of the President to guarantee civilian control of the military. Aware of the world of their time, they understood the danger an unfettered military posed to civil society. Civilian control was a brilliant initiative, its wisdom confirmed more than 170 years later when President Eisenhower cautioned against the increasing power of the "military-industrial complex".

Republicans, and conservatives in general, imagine the need of military experience for the Commander-in-Chief role played by the President. Yet, since the creation of the Union some 232 years ago only two people have held the Office who could be considered militarily qualified to be Command-in-Chief: General Washington, commander of the Continental Army and General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in WWII. President Washington chose not to wage war; President Eisenhower chose to successfully end the one he inherited. As qualified Commanders-in-Chief they understood military force is the option of last resort.

Other Presidents have served in the military, many as officers, however, only the first and thirty-fourth were military strategists. Both were 'big-picture' thinkers, concerned not with the imagined insult or perceived injustice of the moment, but with the well-being and future of the Nation as a whole.

A Commander-in-Chief must be a strategic thinker, understanding the world, it's cultures and nuances, and appreciating America's position of power and responsibility as a leader. A Commander-in-Chief must also be aware of America's limitations, financially, militarily and politically.

Those preferring the role of 'maverick' best remain in the more contained tactical arenas where their nature enables them to excel. Mavericks are knee-jerk, narrow focus thinkers. Occasionally heroes of the moment; but unsuited for larger roles where their presence constitutes enormous risk.

Note to Sun Media

Letter to the Editor, July 2008

Sir:

In your July 16th column Separate reality for the Liberals you described the National Energy Policy signed into existence by Premier Lougheed and Prime Minister Trudeau as: "...one of the most sweeping government policies ever undertaken in Canada. Under the guise of energy security, the NEP redistributed Alberta's oilpatch wealth towards the federal government and consumers in the rest of the country."

I would really appreciate an explanation of that statement. Since the NEP consumer price controls only affected Canadian consumers, minority purchasers of Alberta crude, most of the oil wealth imagined to be Alberta's would not be touched. With Alberta as a part of Canada, Albertans investing in, for example tar sands development, could avail themselves of federal grants covering up to 80% of their costs. Grants to 35% of costs were available for those preferring to invest in conventional wells. Meanwhile the NEP did nothing to remove resource control from its constitutional provincial domain, nor did it change Alberta's minimalist royalty structure.

The only ones losing wealth under the NEP would be those foreign investors who determined to remove it from Alberta in the first place.

You then go on to say: "For Albertans who lost their homes, jobs and businesses in the years that followed, 'NEP' became a rallying cry..." Admittedly you do not directly state the NEP caused what many Albertans consider an economic slump - which would be better described as the lessening of an economic boom by most of the world's standards - but the implication is still there.

The history of world oil prices for the past 60 years from WTRG Economic strongly suggests US price controls were the major influence that resulted in the world price drop from slightly over $70/bbl in 1981 to the low twenties that were reaching in the mid 1980's.

Surely even Sun Media can't believe that Ottawa or a combination of Ottawa and the Liberal Party of Canada have such power over the world price of petroleum. Or could they?

On a more editorial note, the comment "The sad reality is the politics of disunity have served the Liberals well over the years" may well be correct, but it would be more revealing to replace the word 'Liberals' with 'Sun'. Sun Media sets the gold standard when it comes to negatively focusing attention on the differences between Canadians.