"Liberal" Turnout at Lethbridge East Nomination Meeting

..turning our blue eyes red.

Ok.

So I'll admit it.

I attended the Lethbridge East Liberal.. err.. Progressive Conservative Nomination meeting last night.

As a favor to a volunteer who continues to toil for the PC Party, I offered to act as a Notary to take Declarations of Residency for people who did not have sufficient identification to confirm their address in the constituency.

The race was between long time County of Lethbridge Reeve, Lorne Hickey, and former Liberal MLA, turned PC convert, Bridget Pastoor.

And it was nice to see a lot of faces of people I haven't seen in a long while.

And it was disconcerting to see a massive number of tax-consumers coming out in droves to a Progressive Conservative meeting.

Just to give you a little taste..

The meeting began with Lorne's speech which was, well, workmanlike, if not really all that inspiring or moving.

Then we moved to the Bridget's speech.  For someone who professed to have been shocked that candidates gave speeches before the polls opened, she had no problem filling 10 or 15 minutes essentially telling everyone who was a Progressive Conservative before last month that they were thugs and neanderthals.   That while she may have been a bag lady for former Progressive Conservative and master of Machiavellian politics, Dick Johnson..  the party wasn't worthy of her until the election of Alison Redford as leader.

Now.

Following the speech, there was a shocking increase in the numbers of what I would call "tax-consumers".   You know.  The opposite of "tax-payers".

Seniors.

Teachers.

People who GET money from government, but, on a net basis, pay nothing.

So.  No shock.  We later are advised that Bridget was successful..  ho hum.. and we see the clear and obvious progression of the former small "c" conservative party to something a little left of Tommy Douglas and Jack Layton.

Which is fine, I guess...  that's how democracy works.  But, I think it's somewhat instructive of what we might expect in the days and months to come from the PC Party's new leader.

Continued deficits.

Continued profligate spending.

Continued "big brother" expansion in a Province that, at one time, lured me from British Columbia because I sought a place to do business in a predictable political climate.

Those days are done.

Barack Obama to PM Harper: "Please Sir.. We Want Some More"

Well.

Perusing a new blog in my neck of the woods, "Out Here 2" I see that Barack Obama has been up to more silliness.

Apparently, Barack has put the breaks on the proposed Keystone pipeline from Alberta to the U.S.

No bother.

He and his will need what we have to sell, in good time.  At a much higher price.  And, who knows..  maybe other commitments for that oil will have been made by then.

Might make for a good story, should that come to pass...  perhaps we'll call it, "Obama Twist"...

The moment arrived, the leaders took their place.  The Prime Minister, in his navy blue suit, stationed himself at the podium; the Premiers of the Provinces behind him; the bids were received, and a hush fell over the room. Deliveries were arranged, the oil disappeared, and the buyers whispered to each other, and winked at young Obama - while the Chinese delegate nudged him.

Child as he was, he was desperate to right his wrong - his country was hungry for oil, making Barack reckless with misery.  He rose from his table; and advancing to the Prime Minister, hat in hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own timorousness:


'Please, sir, I want some more.'

The Premier was a confident, generous man; but his cheeks turned rosy.  He gazed in amusement on the small rebel for some seconds, and then clung on to his podium for support, as he struggled to control a laugh.  The Premiers stood speechless, but with broad grins across their faces.


'What' said the Premier, at barely a whisper. "I'm sorry, Barack, but I didn't hear you.. could you repeat that?"

'Please, sir,' replied Barack, 'We want some more.'

The Premier aimed a blow at Barack with the back of his hand; and then pulled back and shrieked aloud with laughter. 

"More oil, Barack?", he exclaimed.  "More oil? Sorry my little friend, but your ship has sailed."  And so, with hat in hand, and tail between his knees, poor young Barack slipped out of the room, hearing the  hale and hearty laughter behind him. "

Gay Marriage Hubbub.. and who's wearing no clothes.

Remember the story about the Emperor and his New Clothes?

You know, he had a tailor who told him he would produce an outfit of the most remarkable fabric - which was of the finest cloth - a cloth so fine that it would appear invisible to anyone who was so simple that they could not appreciate its quality.

And sure enough, when the King donned the new clothes, he himself saw nothing - but he was so vain that he could not possibly admit to being simple - and he accepted the clothes and strode proudly through the streets of his kingdom - with none of his citizens having the courage to tell him that, indeed, he was naked.

Until a small, simple and honest boy, pointed out what everyone was too timid to say.  That the Emperor, in fact, had no clothes.

So it goes with the Liberals and the issue of Gay Marriage - coming to a head this week with a host of morons, from Don Martin, to Irwin Cotler, to Craig Oliver - all telling foreigners married in Canada that their new cloak of marriage is made of the finest materials and of the finest colors.

Until the Conservatives had the honesty and the decency to say to them all.. uhm.. no.  The marriage you thought you had, is perhaps, an illusion.

Not to be evil or homophobic.. but to point out the reality.

That a marriage in Canada isn't much good unless you stay in Canada.

Because when you take your new marriage home, well, in Florida and in the United Kingdom, it's invisible.

And when you decide that you don't want to be married anymore, and you live in Florida or the U.K., their governments look at you like the idiot emperor, and say, "You're not married, as far as we are concerned, so you most certainly can't get divorced."

And suddenly, and sadly, the wedded couple realize that while they were told by the Liberals and by others how wonderful their marriage was, in fact, it was an illusion.

And how sad, then, that they seek to apply to have Canada terminate their marriage - only to discover, much to their chagrin, that you can't get divorced in Canada if you don't have a real and substantial connection with Canada.

Whether you are gay, heterosexual, whatever..   you or your spouse need to be permanently resident in the country for at least one year prior to filing for divorce.

For good reason.

Because to have jurisdiction over divorce, you also take jurisdiction to make decisions about children's parenting, about child and spousal support, and about division of assets.  And what authority does Canada have to make decisions on those issues where there is no connection with our jurisdiction.

It's fundamental conflict law.

To make decisions regarding an asset or a person, they have to "exist" before the court.

Of course, Irwin Cotler, the former Liberal Minister of Justice - didn't tell anyone that when Canada ratified gay marriage.  No one explained to parties marrying in Canada that their marriage, and the legal realtions that arise from that union, would not exist outside of Canada unless their home state also accepted gay marriage.

So it was small wonder that Irwin Cotler was babbling like a simpleton last night on CTV trying to wag his finger at the Conservatives who did nothing but point out the reality of the legal downside of a Canadian marriage of gay persons not resident here.  Something the Liberals knew, but were too dishonest or disenguous to point out when they were in power.

Remeber Irwin Cotler.. he was the ass who left Omar Khadr to rot in Guantanamo, until of course he was no longer in power, and then he lead the charge for the government to repatriate him.

Same guy.  Left gay couples out to dry when he brought in the Civil Marriage Act by not addressing the reality of divorce of those couples, and now is complaining about the mess he created.

At least he's consistent in his inconsistency.

What are the Conservatives doing?

Nothing.

No change in the law.

No effort to suggest that our citizens who are parties to gay marriages are any different that married heterosexual couples.

The Conservatives simply spoke up and told the truth. 

How dare they.

Paying Child Molesters.. Liberalism Run Amok

Herbert the Pervert.. a big fan of small "l" liberalism.

So.

What happens when you put the keys to the public treasury in the hands of small "l" liberal geniuses who govern not based upon common-sense, but based upon some bizarre notion of high-minded brilliance where the state owes a duty to help essentially everyone who demands it, regardless of why?

THIS is what happens.

The Greek government today announced that pedophiles and pyromaniacs are "disabled" and therefore entitled to make claims for government assistance arising from their "disability".

I. Kid. You. Not.

So.. for those keeping score at home..  according to some twisted liberal agenda:

a) It is BAD to expect you to repay debts that you promised to pay when you took the money; but..

b) If you molest children, burn down other people's property or flash women at the local park..  THAT sort of behavior does warrant payment from the same person who refuses to pay their debts.

Nice.

And - before we get too complacent..  we are not that far removed in our little corner of paradise here in Alberta.

The current price of oil is over $100.00 per barrel.

Since 2000, the average price of oil has been $53.53 per barrel.

So.  Then.

Explain how Alberta, collecting revenues directly and indirectly from oil production at price which is double the average price over the last decade, still manages to run a $3.1 billion deficit?

What, pray tell, will occur when (not if) oil goes back down in price?

Meanwhile, we make wonderful promises of additional funding to teachers, have increased the reach of government control by implementing an offense of driving while ALMOST impaired (which gives you no right of due process to oppose), has expanded the ability of the Maintenance Enforcement Department to collect money from payors that they may not owe, to take their drivers' licenses (with no due process to oppose).. and about a hundred other assorted government "liberal" initiatives which lead one to believe that..

Yes.

We may shortly being paying pedophiles and pyromaniacs in Alberta.

Populist Poo.. the Addicts Blaming the Dealers

Well.

This morning I read of the tragic and senseless murder of yet another Canadian in Mexico, U.B.C. student, Ximena Osegueda, found stabbed, strangled and bound on a beach in Huatulco, Mexico, a growing tourist destination on the south Pacific coast - this coming only days after the killing of another B.C. resident, Robin Wood in Melaque, Mexico.

But what struck me about this event was actually a comment by JeffCa:

Who is to blame for all of this? Us rich "civilised" people who like to indulge in a little bit of marijuana or cocaine. Our demand for these drugs fuels this crime, and we somehow find a way to blame it on the "uncivilised" Mexicans, the ones who work to supply our demand. These drugs should be treated like blood diamonds and avoided. But I guess people don't mind if somebody "down south" gets killed, as long as they can get their fix.  

He's completely correct, obviously.  There is no way that the relatively impoverished Mexican citizens could fuel the greed and terror resulting from the Mexican drug trade without the complicity of wealthy North Americans.

And - rest assured - that this drug trade is not being fueled by the evil and hated "1%".  Yes, I'm sure that there are many CEO's out there who are regular users of cocaine and marijuana..  but 1% of the population can only snort so much blow.  No - the real responsibility rests with the rest of us, the so-called "victims" of economic inequality.. 

Who see nothing wrong in smoking week to calm our nerves or to lift our spirits.

Who see no big deal about a little coke here and there to make a good time a little better.

No big deal. 

And while the papers love to jump on the populist bandwagon and spout off about obscene CEO salaries and how, again, the economic gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing - they ignore the obvious reality that both the Mexican drug lords and the hated CEO's of the big corporations are, at the end of the day, fed by the 99%. 

Like a bunch of pampered and spoiled Dr. Frankensteins, we build the monster and give it life, and then get all indignant over the power the monster wields.  The power that we gave it.

Sure..  we have a few Woodstock throw-backs who camp out in city parks holding up signs demanding that someone... that is SOMEONE ELSE.. does something about the wrongs of the world - but at the end of the day, when the rubber hits the road..  the REAL 99% are, more or less, content to maintain the status quo.

Which is fine, I guess, if the majority want Apple and Microsoft and WalMart and Coca-cola and IBM and Mexican drug dealers to keep making the money they make, I suppose, that's how democracy works.

But stop with the complaining about the society that we elect by our actions every day of the week.

And news media, get your head out of your asses and recognize this reality as well.

At the end of the day, if we're really offended by how much a CEO with TD Canada Trust is making, cancel your VISA, move your account to a Credit Union.  If you believe that the building of pipelines to the U.S. or to the Pacific Coast is truly wrong, ride a bike, walk, or at least use public transit and sell your car or truck.  Stop smoking weed.  Stop shopping at WalMart.

But - if your plan is to wine and complain and as OTHER people to change the world and make things different - well, sorry, but your hypocrisy is deafening.

At the end of the day, the 99% are essentially voting to keep the CEO's fat and wealthy and to keep the drug wars going.

So stop with the moral indignation already.

Or change YOUR behavior, instead of complaining about someone else.

Hobema's "Banishment" of Trouble-makers.. Question is, "To where..?"

Drag our Leaf Icon above to your taskbar to bookmark TGAM in Internet Explorer 9.

Show me how

Please don't show me this again

Remind me later

His grandparents are from Reykjavic..  buh-bye..

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

One has to sympathize with the citizens of the Samson Cree reserve at Hobbema, Alberta, where innocent children have been shot and killed through the walls of their homes as a result of ongoing gang violence.

But the recent vote by the Hobbema Band to approve a policy to "banish" trouble-makers from their reserve is more than a little troubling.

Because it begs the question, "Where will they be banished to?" 

One imagines that the new murder capital of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, will be a favorite for the banishees.  So then - the solution appears to be to send potential murderers and drug dealers to other communities to deal with.

Nice.

And the suggestion that those who might harbor the banishees might themselves be banished is also a little troubling.

Imagine the stress on an Indian family who is faced with a child who wishes to come visit his or her parents after being banished.  Do you turn your back on your child, or do you comply with the direction of the Band.

Consider, as well, the reality that for many First Nations people, issues of nepotism and corruption have been a significant problem as well.. so one might, reasonably, question whether decisions regarding banishment for those who “present a danger to the health or safety of the community" could possibly be used to further the inappropriate interests of Band Counsel members, their friends and family.  Need access to a new home for your adult child - well, just banish someone from their home.. problem solved.

And it's also an interesting question, which might be more broadly considered, as to whether or not ANY community in Canada might have the right to banish trouble-makers to their own "sovereign nation" of origin - whether that Nation is Somalia, Iran, Germany, France... or to the Samson Cree Nation.

Happy New Year.. SFL receives his Christmas Present Dec. 31

Searching for Liberty...  the "Rebel QC"

So.

I'm away on holidays with family, and I receive a Facebook message that simply says, "Congratulations".

For what, I ask back?  I have no idea what I'm being congratulated for, and shortly receive a few more emails of congratulations - until one message mentions that I have received my "Queen's Counsel" designation.

For those of you outside of the legal profession, it's an honorary title bestowed by the Queen (or King)  upon lawyers who have distinguished themselves amongst their peers (in theory).  However, in practice, it is a title bestowed as often as not as a form of political patronage to those who have distinguished themselves by supporting the governing party in power.

In my own case, as I've been pretty critical of the PC Party of Alberta over the last while, and more specifically, very critical of our current Premier, Alison Redford, it came as quite a surprise to me when the announcement was made by the Attorney General's office - however, there is also a practice of appointing elected benchers of the Law Society of Alberta as Queen's Counsel as well, and, not doubt, it is under that mantel that I have received my honor.

I am pleased that this year, I share the honor locally with our current Lethbridge Mayor (and continuing lawyer) Rajko Dodic and a very capable solicitor I worked with in the past Barrie Broughton - both of which are hardly considered good Progressive Conservative foot soldiers.  In fact, in Rajko's case, his political leanings would probably be somewhere between Olivia Chow and Bob Rae.  So - it is with some pleasant serendipity that I receive this honor in the company of two lawyers who clearly did not receive their appointment based upon political patronage.

So.

While the honor does come with any financial reward, while it does not allow me the keys to some special secret bathroom, but does now allow me to post "Q.C." behind my name, it is nonetheless a pleasant and appreciated surprise.  And while, in theory, I am now a representative in name of the Queen of England, I should promise to maintain my status as a lawyer and citizen who will continue to be the same sarcastic, occasionally offensive, agent provocateur who endeavors to always "speak his truth" - or, as I've said before, "keep it real".