Skip to content

Case in point example of columnist's argument

letter-sta

In response to A.I. Smith:

To Ms Hamilton’s benefit, her school of higher learning provided her with the skills of reading comprehension and critical thinking, whereas your response demonstrates neither. In fact, it demonstrates an assumption which I detest deeply, as an Albertan – that any critique of conservatism equates to incompetence. It is incredibly arrogant and misses the mark completely.

Your response does not address Ms Hamilton’s primary assertion that Albertans will remain desperate, frustrated and ignored unless we re-evaluate why 70 years of federal conservative representation has not brought us to a point of prosperity, or even stability. Instead, you accuse her of being a Liberal lapdog, for simply stating Conservatives have failed to accurately represent the wishes of Albertans.

She posits voting Liberal as an alternative, but does not state doing so is some sort of magical solution to Alberta’s problems, as you suggest. I should direct you to where she stated: “When the 34 seats in Alberta are never in play, there is no incentive for anyone – Conservative or Liberal, Trudeau or Harper – to put our issues at the forefront.”

Furthermore, your belief that “the USA would probably welcome us as a partner” is a completely ineffective rebuttal to Ms Hamilton’s critique of the Albertan separatist movement. Many experts have concluded separatism is legally and fiscally impossible – a mere pipe dream. Perpetuating or even entertaining the idea demonstrates precisely what you charged Ms Hamilton with – “idealism rather than reality.”

It is incredibly ironic that you allege “everyone who casts a vote is a worthy person” then ultimately conclude “… if you are not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” The arrogance you demonstrated in your response to Ms Hamilton is precisely Alberta’s problem. Ms Hamilton certainly made her point, in that regard.

L.G. Thomas, St. Albert




Comments