Lately, I've been in the habit of getting up early and watching the news.

It's not that I truly have to be up early. In fact, on many days, my work day doesn't actually begin until afternoon. Yet still, I get up. I face the morning. I get that morning walk in with my beautiful wife and our dog; and I come home to watch the news. In the mornings, we don't watch the local news; after all, what more can they share with us that we didn't already learn about from the evening news the night before or that won't be found in the paper?

So we watch Headline News. Headline News has changed drastically from how I remember it as a child. In my youth, I would simply turn to Headline News in the morning at ten minutes before the top of the hour to get my recap of the sports highlights from the night before. It used to be a systematic, mostly pre-recorded show that would simply repeat the same stories every 30 minutes for much of the morning. Now, headline news is this bright, vibrant show that feels like a local news show for a nation. The hosts are charismatic, funny, and genuinely likeable; a far cry from the stoic, static news anchors that hosted the show in the early 1990s.

One of the hosts, Robin Meade, was spending her day today with former U.S. President George H.W. Bush. I would have liked to have watched her interview with Bush, but I had to get ready to spend my morning doing some important volunteer work in my community, which, in a roundabout way, brings me to the point of my post today.

Community is important. I'm thankful that I live in a friendly, clean, and quiet community. We should all be so fortunate. Yet the sad reality is that many of us are not. Many people in cities across North America and throughout the world live in neighborhoods that have been ravaged by drug abuse, gang violence, and prostitution.

Okay, true enough you might say, but how does any of that relate back to Headline News?

One of the stories on Headline News this morning was about billboards that are appearing in cities all across America calling for an end to the War on Drugs through ending the prohibition of all street drugs. "Drugs are Bad. The War on Drugs is Worse." is the claim made on these billboards.

These billboards are sponsored by a group that calls itself LEAP, an acronym which stands for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. No, you didn't just misread that. Apparently, there exist now members of law enforcement who not only believe in the full legalization of street drugs, but also have no qualms about joining a group and publicly promoting that view.

Now, please forgive me for moral grandstanding, but how can a police officer actually believe in the legalization of street drugs? Furthermore, how can anyone that believes in the legalization of street drugs continue to be actively employed in law enforcement? Do you want a LEAPer patrolling your streets?

I would think that being a member of an organization such as LEAP would be grounds for automatic dismissal from service in law enforcement and a swift return to civilian life. If it's not, by God, it should be.

Now before anyone reading my blog tells me about all the worse things out there in the world than illegal drugs, or somebody decides that they must remind me about how successful Chicago mobster Al Capone was simply because alcohol prohibition made him a nearly exclusive dealer in his drug of trade, let's get two things straight: You don't make the world a safer place by decriminalizing morally-bankrupting criminal behaviour, and it's nearly 80 years since Al Capone ran illegal distillaries. There are far more and far worse drugs available now than were available in the 1920s.

Also, mobsters in Capone's day, as contemptable as they were, had boundaries that they weren't willing to cross. Today's dealers freely sell their products to small children, involve children in the distribution scheme, and build their toxic drug laboratories in childrens' homes. By today's standards for dealers, Capone and his contemporaries were choir boys.

If I might return to my first point for a moment; so there are some cops out there who think that the job is just too demanding, that there are just entirely too many laws to enforce. Sure, who doesn't sometimes feel overwhelmed by their job? I know what the police do is difficult, demanding, and often demoralizing work. Here in Edmonton, it's so bad that the city police can't keep themselves from compulsiving cursing.

I certainly get that some of these cops feel that drug violation arrests are simply a revolving door; the drug user gets many chances which he proudly and constantly blows (no pun intended), the small time dealers get minimum penalties, laughable fines and community service, and the big fish, the dealers who are rolling in the dough, are protected from prosecution by their big name lawyers and their convenient citizenships.

Yet what I fail to understand is how legalizing street drugs would suddenly make all of this go away. Let's just pretend for a moment that most users of what we now view as illegal drugs are, in all other ways, polite, civically-responsible, law-abiding citizens. I know it's difficult, but stay with me. I know I'm not being remotely realistic, but just pretend. 

So, because I want to free these upstanding citizens from the cruel cuffs of criminal law enforcement that current criminal codes subject them to,  I decide to legalize all street drugs.

What happens next?

Do all the current dealers apply to the government for a license to produce their drug?

Oh wait, I'm sorry, I forgot. I didn't ask you to pretend that drug dealers were morally upstanding members of their communities, did I? I thought not. The mental gymnastics that would be required to arrive at the level of delusion required to suppose that dealers are mostly philanthropic, charitable creatures of high moral virtue is beyond anybody -- at least I would hope.

Also, not that this argument needs any further scaffolding, but does anyone think that street drug dealers would be willing to disclose their recipies to their local federal agents? For that matter, is anybody confident that most drug dealers have recipies from which they never deviate?

Okay, so if the current dealers aren't rushing to turn in applications for government licenses to distribute their products, then I must assume that either the government or already existing agencies would have to become street drug distributors in order for this legalization to work.

I once had a friend in the military tell me that he had sources that told him that Phillip Morris, the proud makers of Marlboro cigarettes, have a ready plan for the day that the U.S. government decides to legalize marijuana. I'm sure his sources, in between tokes, had a great many other enlighted thoughts, but I digress. 

Who thinks that the wealthy, well-connected drug dealers of the world would be willing to see their principle source of income destroyed by government-sanctioned competition? Apparently, some folks in law enforcement who have joined the ranks of LEAP have simply forgotten what drug dealers do to their competition.

Quite simply, drug dealers kill their competition. Much of the gang violence we see today is the result of drug dealers fiercely protecting their markets. So maybe we should entertain the possibility that drug dealers might treat government or commercial industry competition with a similiarly gentle touch.

You know something, though. Maybe drug dealers wouldn't worry much at all about the government or any other industry producing their drugs. Maybe the drug dealers would realize that government or industrial production of illicit street drugs would simply widen the market by creating new consumers.

Did I lose you? If so, please stop pretending that society's current batch of illicit drug users are otherwise upstanding citizens and re-embrace reality. Street drugs have a different clientel because they are a different class of drug. To pretend otherwise is criminally neglegent.

Would the current dealers be losing many of their clients to the mass production and sale of Marlboro Marijuana Lights? Probably not. Instead Marlboro would sell their cigarettes, including the Marijuana varieties, to teens and the young, drug-dependent adults they grow into. Meanwhile, the old marijuana dealers would either keep their clients through assurances that the drugs they deal are "fresher, greener and less processed" or they would simply create new drugs.

Many years ago, when I was a young man first tasting the deliciousness of freedom from the opressive tyranny of my father's house, I sought out drugs to demonstrate my rebellion. Given that I was also a member of the American Armed Forces, I chose cigarettes and beer. They were readily available; and it was perfectly legal for me to purchase them and to consume them.

So I wasn't much of a rebel.

In fact, I was a poser.

I drew my line before illegal drugs, not because I had any great confidence in drugs that were legal or the government's ability to protect me from myself, but because I knew I couldn't handle the constant anxiety of having to watch myself around police officers.

Is it a bad thing that the fear of being arrested for illegal drug possesion would keep me from trying street drugs?

Not at all. I wish that more people in our time had the kind of fear -- dare I claim, a healthy fear -- that I've always had of such things.

In any event, I'm not saying that it's a perfect system, this War on Drugs, but I think it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative: A world in which tobacco, alcohol, and crack cocaine are all equally readily available to the masses.

It wouldn't be much of a LEAP of logic to presume that with more people exposed to more drugs, that the cost of drug treatment would only continue to skyrocket.

But then again, I guess if some of us are content to believe that we could possibly reduce crime through decriminalizing street drugs, than it would only stand to the same wacked-out reasoning that treatment costs would actually plummet, as no one would actually need treatment for addictions, because they could simply continue to use their favorite drugs without fear of prosecution.

To return once more to the claim on the LEAP billboards, that is, that "Drugs are Bad. The War on Drugs is Worse." Let's just all add that the LEAP War on Logic is Deadly. Or, at the very least, it is detrimental to the state of peaceful communities everywhere.

Yesterday, I sat in an auditorium full of my peers, waiting for my moment to walk across the stage and shake hands with the University of Alberta chancellor, the dean of my faculty, and the President of the University, as well as the dude who came in marching in with a scepter -- sorry, I don't remember what his actual function is, I just remember wondering why he wasn't wearing a Burger King crown or some other comic display of his authority. At any rate, there I was, in that auditorium, sitting among my peers, wondering how many of them would be working in the profession come the fall.

I found myself thinking back to one of the first classes that I took in my field. The instructor, a rather spirited man who was semi-retired from the field, told the class that every year, between 200-300 students would graduate from the University of Alberta with our degree, and in Edmonton, there would only be about 10 - 20 positions available in any given year. As the class silently pondered the implications of that information, he reminded us that many of our peers would likely be planning on taking our degrees outside the city, or even the province, to find employment. Several people in the class then gave an audible sigh of relief. To illustrate his point, the professor asked the class to demonstrate, by show of hands, how many of us were hoping to use our degrees here in the city. Almost the entire class raised their hands.

So now I wonder how many of us will actually get that opportunity come this fall? Will I be among those, or will I be looking for other lines of work?

There's something absolutely anti-climatic about graduation. At the end of every semester I was at University, I would be scrambling to get the last of my papers written. I would be cramming to get that last bit of studying done before a major final exam. I would be full of nervous energy. There would be those moments, mostly in the middle of the night, where I would seriously doubt whether I would be able to make it through my assigned coursework.

Now that I'm done, however, I find myself looking back at what I've been through and wondering how I could have thought that any of it was particularly overwhelming. Why couldn't I have had a higher GPA? Why couldn't I have had my name followed by the words "with distinction"?

Time has a way of decontextualizing our experiences.

If my wife had her way, I'm sure that they would have followed my name with the words "with great distraction".  Certainly, my achievements in Madden Football and a host of other Playstation games would lend support to that honour. 

I think sometimes when we look back on an experience, it's hard to understand why things didn't occur a certain way, or why things weren't done at a certain time. Being removed from those moments, I can barely recall why anything else seemed more important to me than the papers or the exams; yet I know, at times, that many things took priority over my school work.

And yet, somehow, I still passed.

I honestly don't know how other people make it to graduation, single people in particular. I can't even imagine how I would have made it passed my first semester without my wife constantly nagging, er supporting me through my work. She was constantly organizing my notes, managing my day-to-day schedule, posting deadlines for me, and keeping the world at bay for me while I was goofing off, er making my way through my degree program.

I don't tell her nearly enough how much I appreciate all that she's done for me. I'm where I am today because of her, without a doubt.

So maybe this fall, I'll be working in my field, frantically slaving away at the tasks that those who have trained in my field do; or perhaps I will be upgrading my academic portfolio to make myself marketable to jobs outside of my chosen profession. Either way, I know that I'll be okay so long as I have my wife by my side.

You ever watch those commercials for weight loss drugs on television?

Of course you have! How could you not?

Even if you have never given a moment's thought to improving your own waistline (c'mon, who honestly can say that they've never, EVER thought about improving their weight?), you can't help but watch these commercials in anticipation of the side-effects.

Male Narrator (in hushed, hurried monotone): "Rid-al-Phat may cause nausea, heart palpatations, sudden projectile vomiting, bleeding ulcers, loose, runny stools, nosebleeds, blindness, severe depression, and, in some rare cases, self-inflicted death by asphyxiation. Rid-al-Phat should not be taken by women who are pregnant or expect to become pregnant. Rid-al-Phat should not be taken by anyone who has ever been diagnosed with mental stability. Rid-al-Phat should not be taken with vitamins, vitamin supplements, birth control, anti-depressants, anti-inflammitories, or alcohol. Care should be used when operating heavy machinery while taking Rid-al-Phat. Tell you doctor if you experience sudden shortness of breath, heart palpatations, and sweating, as these may be signs that you are engaging in intense physical activity, which is not recommended while taking Rid-al-Phat."

Cue happy music, followed by female narrator (melodic, calm voice): "Haven't you always wondered what your life would be like lighter? Talk to your doctor today about Rid-al-Phat. Rid-al-Phat: Because a couple thousand dollars a month isn't too much money to spend to put your insides through a chemical blender with the faint hope that the end result would be a net weight loss of 5 to 7 pounds."

But seriously, are there any side-effects that those who are trying to lose weight wouldn't put up with if tolerating the side-effects would lead to weight loss?

Doctor: "Ma'am, I'm legally compelled to inform you that 80% of patients who take this drug have experienced spontaneous labour and delivery of angry gremlins. These gremlins, if not immediately destroyed, could conquer the world."

Patient: "Would it be okay for me to have a six month prescription, or will you be wanting me to come in once a month for check-ups?"

Doctor: "Last month, it was reported that over 90% of patients who took this drug reported losing the ability to control their bowels and were forced to wear diapers."

Patient: "Did they lose weight?"

Doctor: "Yes, all the patients who took this drug reported significant weight loss."

Patient: "Could you write me a prescription for a year's supply?" 

So if you had somehow managed to miss those particular commercials, now you know; and when you see me staggering down the street with a bloody nose, drooling uncontrollably, and wearing an adult diaper, don't judge me. I'm just trying to shed a couple of pounds.

So apparently, the New England Patriots went ahead and trademarked the term 19-0. I wonder how much it's going to cost me to report that the New England Patriots failed to go 19-0. I wonder how much it's going to hurt for the would-be 19-0 Patriots to watch the news tomorrow and hear over and over again about how they failed to go 19-0, how they failed to win the only game that really counted, and again how the precious 19-0 that they trademarked eluded them in the dying seconds of Super Bowl XLII.

I guess the New York Giants figured out that the way to beat the Patriots is to change the look on your sideline signals from the first half to the second half. That way, when the cheating Pats are sitting around at halftime watching their opposition's coaches sideline signals, they're only learning what the signals meant, not what they would mean for the rest of the game.

I guess New England learned tonight that when you make a deal with the devil, that eventually, you have to pay back your debt.

I guess Randy Moss must feel pretty cool now, having made a derogatory gesture on national television on what could have been the game-winning touchdown -- that is, before Eli Manning and company showed the Patriots that the game isn't over until the very end.

Finally, I guess the Madden football streak of predicting consecutive Super Bowl winners comes to an end at five tonight. It was reported that the official Madden simulation predicted the Patriots to win. I ran my own simulation on Madden 2008 and found that the Giants won. I guess my old PS2 is probably calibrated a little more accurately.  

So today's Groundhog's Day!

News has it that the Canadian imitation of Punxsutawney Phil made it out of his hole without seeing his shadow. Allegedly, this means that there will be an early spring. After this week's bitter chill, I say bring it on, spring! You hear me, spring? I said bring it! If nothing else, it might get those buffoons who keep zinging the Edmonton Journal venting column with witty one-liners about how much they'd appreciate a little global warming to zip their lips and pretend once more to be intelligent, bipedal participants in Canadian society.

But seriously, folks... when are we going to stop allowing some timid little groundhog to determine the arrival of our spring? This day in age, when we've got everything from microwaves to TiVos, we should be able to come up with a better way of ensuring that spring comes to each of us in its proper time. Oh wait, come to think of it, we do have something. We could each be doing our part to ensure that we are reducing our carbon footprint. We could be carpooling. We could be reusing and recycling more. Unfortunately, given those things are not as easy as a microwave or a garbage disposal, nor are they anywhere near as fun, I guess we're just doomed to have to rely on this rodent to predict our future -- that is, until we've done our part to destroy the natural habitat of groundhogs and rendered them extinct.

Speaking of extinction, somebody sent me a video clip of Montel Williams speaking on a Fox News broadcast done the day after Heath Ledger died. In it, Montel scolds the other news people for discussing Ledger's death while they could be talking about the countless men and women of the United States military who had died in Afghanistan and Iraq throughout the past month. 

Let's get something straight here, just so no one is fooled by what was going on. Let's not be hoodwinked into thinking that Montel Williams is really that overly concerned about the lives of soldiers. He was on Fox News, so he pandered to the audience that would be watching, plain and simple.

Besides, it's not a crime or a slight to the men and women of the military to discuss the death of a celebrity. It's unfortunate that the men and women who die in combat zones are not given the fame that celebrities have, but somehow, I think that most soldiers are okay with that.

If there's a mustard seed of truth to be taken out of Montel Williams' chest pounding and grandstanding allegedly on behalf of the U.S. fighting forces, it's the mantra that Canadians speak every November: "Lest we forget." 

Let's continue to push our newspapers and other media to tell us about our fighting forces, to keep us informed about the casualty counts, lest we forget. 

Let's lobby our elected leaders to bring about a hasty end to foreign wars and to make sure that our fighting forces are given what they need to perform in the combat zone, lest we forget. 

Let's take a moment today to celebrate our liberty, our free speech, and our right to vote. Don't forget to exercise those rights. Democratic society, the very thing that our service men and women stand to uphold, only works if you excerise your rights and ensure that when those rights are being challenged, that you do not stand down. So speak your mind. Enjoy your freedom, and vote in the elections. 

Lest we forget.

Anyone who has been reading my blogs on Edmonton snow removal must think that I have exhausted the topic at this point.

Alas, I have not. There is more yet to be said on Edmonton's snow removal efforts and the aftermath.

I've been watching Global News, and I'm hearing that it has been costing the city over $1 million per day to remove the snow from the streets without even removing snow from the side streets. This is always announced with such shock and dismay, as though snow removal is somehow a detrimental waste of resources.

I've heard before that a good definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. If this definition is sound, then I submit that Mayor Mandel and the Edmonton city council are insane.

In years past, we've skimped on city snow removal, only to be hit with terrible potholes. This spring will be no exception. When we leave snow on the streets to freeze into the roads and expand, melt with the heat and expand with the freeze again, we create these potholes. I find myself wondering if this phenomenon is something that eludes the braintrust that we've elected to represent our interests in this city. They must believe that pothole just happen, that there isn't an explanation for how potholes come to be.

The point of all of this, aside from criticizing the city government and further venting my frustration at the lack of snow removal in my neighborhood, is to point out that we can not reasonably expect that, by skimping on snow removal, that we will actually save money overall. In fact, it stands to pretty good evidence that the only thing we do by not committing to snow removal is create a greater debt for the city every spring and summer in road maintence and repair.

Not only that, but the city convicts its residents to higher auto insurance costs, more automobile repairs as a result of alignment and suspension damage caused by driving on unplowed city streets, and greater risk for being in automobile accidents, all in the name of saving a few million dollars which could be put towards some of Mayor Mandel's pie-in-the-sky dreams.

Snow removal is a necessity in a winter city. It is not a luxury to be enjoyed only by the elites of the city in their neighborhoods. It is a basic right that should be extended to citizens of all neighborhoods throughout the city.

Quite simply, effective and efficient snow removal is the mark of a world class winter city.

I read this morning in the Edmonton Sun about how the present snow removal efforts will cost the city millions of dollars.

I need to know where I can go to get a job where I'm only required to do about 1/16 of the job and collect millions as payment.

I honestly don't know why most Edmontonians aren't seething over the snow removal. The way I see it, failure of the city to remove snow from every city street is criminal. Yes, I said criminal. I'd invite anyone to drive through west end neighborhoods here in Edmonton (I'm sure other neighborhoods are just as bad, but these are the ones that I drive through frequently) and marvel at what the lack of snow removal has created. The roads are terrible. In the spots where the snow has been flattened to the road by frequent traffic, the roads are like hockey rinks -- sheer ice. I say a prayer every time I get to an intersection, and I yield even when the other driver has the yield. This actually saved my life this morning as I was returning from dropping my wife off at the bus stop. This guy in a big white Dodge truck was hitting his brakes (I know because I saw his brake lights) but he sailed through the intersection and had a look on his face of absolute horror. Fortunately for him, I've developed the sense of how horrible driving conditions in the neighborhoods are since the city hasn't removed the snow. Fortunately for him, I yielded even though, technically, I had the right of way.

It makes me wonder how many accidents could be attributed, at least in part, to the poor job of snow removal done in this city. The other thing I wonder is how unplowed streets affect the response times on fire and ambulance. I've noticed that ambulances here in Edmonton look much like the ones I'm accustomed to seeing in other parts of North America. I have yet to see a fleet of off-road ambulatory vehicles that would seem to be necessary to effectively traverse the city's unplowed streets. I know this: If I lost a loved one because the ambulance's response time was too slow, I'd sue the city. I'm actually surprised no one has raised a class-action lawsuit against the city for its plowing policy. Consider this: Is Mayor Mandel's street plowed? I'm sure it is. I've also noticed that streets in wealthier neighborhoods are nice and clean, despite the fact that they are not on major streets or bus routes. Yet my neighborhood, only a couple of blocks away from major bus routes, is completely unplowed. What's scary is that most of the residents in my neighborhood are seniors. It is reasonable to infer that these residents might require ambulatory service at some point this winter. Yet the city has done nothing to ensure these seniors are safe. 
In fact, the only thing this city is willing to do for these seniors is ticket them if they don't get out there and clear the city's sidewalks. 

Right now, I'm angry at Edmontonians who couldn't be bothered to vote out Mayor Mandel and the clueless clowns in city council who are more concerned with pie-in-the-sky dreams like city beaches and a downtown hockey arena than immediate, real-world problems like snow removal and effective public transit.

I hope we can all remember this winter the next time we have an election in this city. Remember that your mayor didn't make sure that snow was removed from your street. Remember that the excuse for the lack of snow removal was that it wasn't in the budget. Remember that the budget had room in it to sponsor an $88 million art gallery. Remember that the budget has room in it to re-design an entrance to the LRT to match the aforementioned art gallery. Remember that the budget has room in it for the city to contribute toward the cost of creating a downtown arena. Remember that the budget has room in it to consider building a beach in the city.

Yet it is clear that there is no room in the budget for responsible snow removal.
 

Let's see -- where do I even begin?

Here in balmy Edmonton (current temperature -42 C or -43 F with the wind chill) when the snow falls, the plows only clear the major roads and bus routes, if we're lucky and the snow happens to have fallen before we've blown the snow removal budget. If you don't happen to live on a bus route, go ahead and kiss your small vehicle's alignment, traction, and under-carriage goodbye. Just budget auto repair into your living expenses, because this city can't be bothered to make the route to your door drivable during the winter months, yet proudly fines any homeowner who fails to clear the snow from the sidewalk in front of the house within 48 hours of the snowfall.

This much of the story you could hear from almost any Edmontonian. What follows is the part of the story that, as an American living in this city, is my unique take on the snow removal situation.

First off, here in Alberta, they refer to the plows as graders. This doesn't make any sense to me. The way I see it, I'm the GRADER, and I give the snow removal in this city an F. Do you hear me, Mayor Mandel and city council? An F. Not a C, not a D+, but an F.

Furthermore, I challenge Edmontonians to compare their auto insurance rates with rates of any motorists in the state of NY. I know, I know. We're talking about completely different parts of North America, but the difference is more than geographic location. It's about snow removal.

I hate to come off like I'm bragging, but where I come from, snow is removed from every street within 24 hours of it falling. What's more, snow removal is ALWAYS in the budget. Go figure, winter cities having snow removal budgets that can't be exhausted by the first two snowfalls of the season. What a concept! (Also, in a related note, cars do NOT park on the streets overnight where I'm from, and plows can clear every street in the middle of the night without their work being needlessly obstructed by inconsiderate citizens. I'm just saying...)

Now, since I've got my soapbox out, and writing this blog beats doing something productive like homework or housework (why do those two words have entirely different meanings? Sorry... that's a rant for another day), I've got to say something about global warming. It seems like every single time we have a cold day or even a cold week here in redneck Alberta, I've got to hear it from the dyed in the wool conservatives about how global warming is a farce. Where the hell are these idiots when there's a couple of days where it's really hot in the summer? Do they suddenly, for those few days, believe in global warming?

Let's lay some facts down real quick, just so that everyone who reads knows where I'm coming from.

Fact 1: Global warming is for real.
Fact 2: Global warming is a naturally occurring process that would take place even without the presence of humans.
Fact 3: Scientists have proven that the presence of humans has exponentially increased the rate at which global warming has taken place.

I'll admit that I haven't conducted an exhaustive study of this matter myself, but my wife studied science extensively in University and has explained the concept of global warming to me ad nausum.

Moreover, what part of global don't these morons get? Just because, here in the little microcosm that is this city or this province, we experience a couple of cold days, doesn't mean that the science of GLOBAL warming has been disproven. I know, it's a hard concept to fathom. 
There is a world out there beyond our unplowed streets.

Maybe once the snow melts and the streets become passable again, somebody could take Bob Layton and all the mindless sheep that he speaks for on a drive so they can see the world out there. Now if that somebody were to fail to bring these simpletons back to Edmonton, I promise not to be too upset.

So I’d just finished work, and I was waiting for a bus downtown to bring me back to the west end. As I was on the phone, a strung-out woman who looked to be in her 30s called out to me. “Good evening, officer,” she said.

Hanging up the phone, I glanced around to discover that I was the only one in the vicinity, and so this woman must have been talking to me.

“How, pray tell, did you figure that I’m an officer?” I asked her.

“So you’re an officer? I knew you were an officer,” she said, not waiting for any confirmation from me. “It’s the way you walk. You walk like an officer.”

“Do me a favour, dear. How ‘bout you just keep this on the down-low, okay?”

It was barely a minute after this conversation that I was approached by a couple of guys that I thought could have been travelling Mormons.  They had white dress shirts, ties, and were wearing black wool dress coats. However, instead of asking me if I’d found Jesus, one of the guys asked me if I knew where they could “score some E.”

Before I could muster any response, the strung-out woman came flying from the heated bus shelter. “You guys should know he’s a cop. You’re asking a cop for drugs.”

The two guys looked at me again for a moment, waiting for a response.

“You gentleman have a good night,” I said, and walked away from them.

They took their cue, and ran the other way down the street.

And to think, all these years, my wife has made fun of the way I walk.