Am I the only one alarmed by this?

Watching the destruction of the Eskimos by Calgary was bad enough. In my world , Calgary occupies a special place as the most American of Canadian cities. As a haven for the Alberta right wing and a beacon for conspicuous consumption and entitlement, Calgary gets my vote for Canadian Sodom and Gomorrah. But that's another rant. The incident that prompted this rant was a feature during the game honoring a Canadian regiment as part of an ongoing tribute to Canadian forces.

I am, quite frankly, alarmed at the pandering of sports - football for now but I expect it to continue once hockey gets underway - to the beatification of the military. I used to watch American sporting events with some amount of bemused derision as they celebrated the American military and raved about their heroism and embodiment of the American ideal. I marveled that any sane group of people could venerate and elevate to hero status what I saw as a necessary evil in any civilized society.

Now I notice, with increased alarm, the mindset of a militaristic society finding fertile ground in a country that I had always thought was grounded in peace and political sophistication. More and more, the military is celebrated in public events ranging from sporting events to cultural festivals, to almost any event that celebrates community. More and more, I am following vehicles with the swirly ribbon that proclaims the driver ahead of me as a supporter of the military. With all the fly-bys and honour guards and moments of silence, I'm beginning to feel like I'm living in Tennessee or Berlin '36 or Peking rather than shy old Edmonton.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no survivalist Unibomber anti government crazy, I just can't buy into all this jingoistic abdication to people with guns and uniforms. We have a standing army because it is de rigueur in this world to have a group of testosterone-gifted post acne twenty-somethings to rattle sabers and snarl at anyone that would challenge your territorial integrity or right to social self-determination. I get that. But the moment that a group of undereducated, overly aggressive people are regarded as heroes by the virtue of their willingness to die as the ultimate actualization of their profession, that is the moment that I stop and ask some questions:

In whose best interest is this realignment of role models?

What kind of society emerges from this mindset?

Who profits and who loses?

Is this a trend or a passing fancy?

The answer to almost all of these questions is the neo-con right wing. A glorification of the military, increased spending on weapons and warfare, and obfuscation of economic realities all play into the hands of the monied elite. Having the public turn its interest to issues of security rather than the more life robbing threat of distribution of wealth, gives the privileged a carte blanche to continue their plunder of the public good and public wealth. While the populace waves its flags and bows its head in reverence for its soldiers, Bill Gates and his ultra rich cadre get to gather a growing proportion of society's wealth to themselves. While right wing governments like Canada's Reformatives and Alberta's Regressive Conservatives announce new initiatives to cut debt and rein in public spending, the increased theft of communal wealth by Canada's richest 5 percent would more than cover any shortfalls in public revenues.

As for trend vs. passing fancy, I'm afraid that I see the growth of militarism as a juggernaut rather than a swinging pendulum. With the force of the electronic and print media on their side and the increasing dumbing down of the Canadian citizenry, I see no return to the gentler, more reasonable Canada of my youth. Just last week, the Edmonton Journal ran a half page article on its front page featuring the U of A's new president and her devotion to native people and Canada's north. Buried at the bottom of page 5 was an article that brought into question Prime Minister Harper's claim that Soviet 'threats' to our sovereignty were at unprecedented levels making his government's purchase of billions of dollars of new fighter planes a necessity. The article established that soviet bombers' approaches to Canadian airspace had actually decreased and the number of such strategic feints, around 4 or so per year, pales next to the 40 some nudges at American air space. Which article is more pertinent to influencing the public's mind set?

I would really appreciate some feedback on this. Our paradigms can only be verified and improved through challenge so please tell me where I have missed the boat? I welcome a dialogue.