A piece in the Guardian this morning puts the Canadian wildfire storming across northern Alberta at 355,000 hectares. Say what? I had no idea what a hectare is, so I looked it up. A hectare is equal to 100 acres.

The fire, which continues to burn out of control is now so big that fire officials apparently aren’t even bothering with acres. If they were, they’d be reporting that the fire has now eaten up 35-million 500-thousand acres of land, which is flat out incredible. Have we ever even had a fire this big in North America since humanoids took an upright form?   Can this possibly be correct?

Considering the size of this fire, if this information is correct and my calculator is working, why aren’t we seeing and hearing more about it on the news?

First the networks and our honorable pundits report that Bernie Sander’s supporters went nuts for no good reason at the Democratic convention in Nevada, neglecting to mention that the state’s Demo leaders changed the delegate allocation rules just prior to the convention tilting the rules in Hillary’s favor.  Et tu, Rachel?   Say it isn’t so!   And now they’re giving short shrift to the biggest wildifre in memory.

It’s a difficult choice deciding which is worse, the scope of the fire or the negligence being exhibited by some American news outlets that have all but abdicated their responsibility to educate and enlighten the American people.

I know Donald Trump is a ratings getter, but come on guys. This is one monster fire. There are bound to be consequences for all of us, including Mr. Trump,  even if much of the land it’s burning isn’t populated.  There’s no carbon tax on Mother Nature and really no good excuse for slanting your coverage in favor of one candidate over another.   Unless corporate has dictated that profits trump the need to know.