Whither Politics in Alberta? If you build it, they will come.

Is this heaven?  Alberta.. the place where dreams come true.

Well.

So, here I sit as an "independent" voice in Alberta politics for the first time in a long time.

Which isn't that different, I suppose, I've penned thoughts in opposition to government positions before, but always from the perspective that I had faith that the good people in the party could right the ship eventually, with a little shove.

Obviously, I've lost that faith.

So.

What then?

Liberal?  Hardly.  David Swann continues to sip from the Liberal Kool-aid which has all but killed the party, which more and more is looking like the aftermath at Jonestown.  After this week's election of their new leader, economist Erick Ambtman - David Swann is all smiles.  When it was suggested his party was in difficulty, his response?

Swann disagrees with this assessment. During his speech to party members, he said the Alberta Liberals are the "most open party in the province," attracting strong support from young people.

Really?

As pointed out by Mount Royal University political scientist, Duane Bratt:

"With former Liberal MLA Dave Taylor now sitting as an independent, former Liberal leader Kevin Taft not expected to run again and MLA Kent Hehr choosing to run for Calgary mayor, the Liberals are in "turmoil," said Bratt. "

The Liberals are all but deceased.

The Wild Rose Alliance?  They have attracted disaffected conservatives in the short run, but at this point have not appeared to have established an identity which offers concrete ideas to deliver a better product than "the devil we know".

The Alberta Party?

This is an interesting offshoot.  A form of populist party which hasn't yet established itself as a viable entity, it's weakness in theory being it's potential strength - a lack of ideological identification.  However, if you review it's policy document, for average Albertan's it raises some pretty big red flags.  It reads like an NDP/Liberal hand-holding session, and their "big listen", was pretty clearly a big Liberal/NDP listen - conservatives need not apply.

So then.

What do Albertan's want?

I don't know.  I haven't spoken to each and every one of them.

But, seeing that the great majority of voters are indicating an intention to either vote Wild Rose or Conservative, it appears that the answer isn't more liberal policy.

My two cents?

We want firstly, a party which offers a vision, an ideal that we can believe in. Where integrity and honesty isn't just a catch-phrase to woo voters, but is the real and tangible backbone of every item of party policy and conduct.

We want a party which offers something better than the tired politics of days gone by.. the kind of politics where the primary benefit of getting elected is how many favors you can dole out to your friends and supporters.

We want a party which neither interferes with business, nor offers them benefits that the rest of us don't have - understanding that the environment belongs to ALL Albertans, and is for us to deal with as we wish - neither capitulating to efforts by business or foreign agents masquerading as environmental activists to force us to use OUR environment as THEY wish - not as WE wish.

We want a party who understands that sometimes the greatest thing that the state can do for us is to leave us alone when we're not hurting our neighbors.

We want a party which understands that tax dollars are received as a trust, and should be used in a fiduciary capacity - not spent in the most effective way to buy more votes to benefit the party in power.

I was involved for a time in politics, as a part of the "PC Machine".

And I would have liked to have had a chance.

Just once. 

To see a politician who was truly different.  To see a politician give an answer which was neither popular nor self-serving - but which was just "right".  To have them stare down the same old, same old in politics, and just as they are getting attacked as not knowing how to "play the game", they wink.  To show them you know something they don't.  That's what I wish for. 

To look at an Alberta future so clear and blue that it hurts your eyes just to look at it. To feel the tingling in your ears as you hear something real and genuine. To vote for a party who "runs the bases", who stretches a double into a triple - who transforms politics as usual.  That's my wish, dear reader, that's my wish.

And is there enough magic out there in the moonlight to make this dream come true?


If you build it, they will come.

Well. Is "any news good news"?

Well.

I can't complain I wasn't quoted accurately by local media.

But does anyone need a full page pic of yours truly?

http://www.country95.fm/news/news-detail.asp?ID=3335

Wikileaks: Who are "THEY"?

A few thoughts today regarding the whole "Wikileaks" stupidity.

First of all. It's interesting that they don't pass on who their sources are.

Only because their whole "raison d'etre" is:

..the defence of freedom of speech and media publishing, the improvement of our common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create new history.

But of course they don't tell you how they get their information.

Transparency is for government, but not for Wikileaks.  We're supposed to just "trust them".

Don't trust the people you elect, but trust some foreign private corporate presence.

Could you imagine if the controlling mind of Wikileaks was British Petroleum or Exxon?

Would we just trust them?  Hardly.

But Wikileaks is different, we're told.  They are fighting "against the man".

But are they trustworthy and honest?

It appears that, like these major corporations, Wikileaks is pulling in a lot of money, and is, ironically, less than forthcoming in disclosing how much it gets and from whom.

So.

I can review financial records for Exxon, for British Petroleum, for most democratic governments.. but I can't review where Wikileaks gets it's money and what they do with it.

Does that not concerns you?  It should.

This past month, the company handling Wikileaks donations terminated it's relationship with Wikileaks, advising that they did so "to comply with money laundering or other investigations conducted by government authorities, agencies or commissions."


Sound cryptic? 

It get's better.

With Exxon or BP, I can tell you who is on their Board of directors.

Wikileaks?  Not so much.

Wikileaks assures us that the information they leak is vetted to assure that no lives are put at risk, and to assure us that this is the case.. well, we are to just trust "them".


Who are "them"? Well, we don't really know.

Apparently, their "advisory board" was determined to be more or less fictitious.


According to Mother Jones Magazine, Wikileaks has published false statements regarding who is on their "advisory board":

But WikiLeaks doesn't readily take no for an answer. When I contacted the impressive figures listed on its advisory board, some didn't know they were mentioned on the site or had little idea how they got there. Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, a former representative of the Dalai Lama, recalls getting a cryptic email from WikiLeaks a few years ago, but says he never agreed to be an advisor. Noam Chomsky is listed as a volunteer administrator of the WikiLeaks Facebook group. This is news to him. "I know nothing about it," he says.

When "Threat Level" contacted Julian Assange and asked him to respond to the allegations that the funding for Wikileaks were being misused:

Assange declined to discuss the organization’s budget with Threat Level.

So.

The people who are all about "telling it like it is", and afraid to tell us who they are, is afraid to tell us where they get their money, and is afraid to tell us what, exactly, they are doing with it.

But it's our elected government we have to worry about.

Something in the Conservative Water..

Et tu Rosa Ferum?

Well.

Following up on my own personal decision to withdraw from my involvement with the PC Party of Alberta, it appears that something must be in the air in Southern Alberta.

With props to Big City Liberal for commenting on it first, the shit has now hit the fan in the mainstream media, announcing a mass resignation of board members from the Wild Rose Alliance in Little Bow.

According to the reports, 8 of 9 board members for the Wild Rose Little Bow constituency resigned over their perception that the nomination process for their next candidate was strong-armed by the main party executive.

This follows up on an earlier dispute in the Medicine Hat nomination process, where allegations of a quickly called nomination process and a refusal of the new candidate to allow certain people to attend board meetings - resulting in the resignation of secretary Bobbie Dearborn from the constituency.

In the face of all this, the party, and in particular, Danielle Smith, put on a brave face and essentially denied that any problems existed at all.

Same old, same old.

Here's my take.. and this is with reference to all major parties, including the Wild Rose.

To get the job, you need to get elected.

That's understood.

However, when the drive to get elected, when the hunger to "win", becomes the dominant effort of the political process, the losers are the people.  And the net result?

- Parties in power refuse to make the right decisions when they may be unpopular, fearing a loss of that power;
- Parties in opposition refuse to acknowledge when the right decisions are made by the party in power, fearing that THEY will not be able to acquire that power;
- When parties on either side of the fence have internal problems - damage control becomes the dominant paradigm, as opposed to problem resolution.

Sadly, it appears the "new kids on the block" are learning the lessons of parties past.  That damage control is the rule of the day. 

That's unfortunate, because, I think, the public has a great hunger for something new and better. 

Something genuine and real.

Resignation from PC Party of Alberta

It is with great regret that I am announcing, immediately, my resignation from the Presidency of the Lethbridge East PC Association, and from my ongoing involvement with the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta.

I have greatly enjoyed my work with members from Lethbridge East and Lethbridge West, and others throughout Alberta, however, for reasons I would prefer to keep to myself at this time, I have chosen to pursue other community involvements.

Best of wishes to those continuing in their involvement with the PC Party.


Robert G. Harvie

Conservatives in Canada: Boiling Frog Warning

More stupid ideas from "Progressive" Thinkers.

Ok.

So.

Here we are in the midst of one of the most significant economic depressions in modern history.

Budgets are strained to provide the basic needs of our citizens, particularly health care and education.  The building blocks of a functioning social system.

Anyway.

Out in Vancouver (the place that brought us the constitutional right for crack and heroin addicts to camp in children's playgrounds and do heroin without legal repercussions) they are advocating another wonderful idea.

They call this "guaranteed income".

You see - as pointed out in the Straight, the problem is that there are too many children in poverty.

Which may be so.

And apparently, it is the responsibility of working Canadians to guarantee those children's families a certain level of income - which in an article in the Georgia Strait, isn't defined, but is implied to be about $35,000.00 per year.

In discussing the concept, the article references a paper by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (sort of the Liberal/NDP answer to the Fraser Institute), "Possibilities and Prospects: The Debate Over a Guaranteed Income."

As painful as it is, I would urge small "c" conservative Canadians to read this paper.  Read it and think about a few things.  Like many offers from academia, it has the patina of looking at the pros and cons of it's underlying premise.. but in reality, it's a slick piece of progressive propaganda, and given the effectiveness of selling bad ideas to a burdened electorate, one should read this paper with some serious degree of concern.

What is the suggestion?

That the government hands out money to every Canadian, without condition.  No need to look for work, no need to lift a finger.  You are a resident of Canada and as such, the government hands you money.

As described in the paper:

"..recipients of such an unconditional guaranteed income would have no requirements of labour force involvement or availability, labour skills training, or job seeking. Such a benefit could be seen as a right of citizenship, as important as (for example) the right to vote."

The discussion of who pays for it and how is, I suggest, intentionally underplayed and to a great extent ignored.  The article acknowledges that the cost would be significant for the effort to be anything more than a token gesture and that taxpayers would hardly stand still for a significant increase in their taxes to fund free-loaders.

The answer?

Deception.

Boldly described in the article is how you avoid a tax revolt.

You get your foot in the door and then, administratively, you just push it open, farther and farther over time.

"Many thoughtful proponents of a guaranteed income see a strategy of gradual implementation — an initially modest but universal guaranteed income whose benefit level grows as the public gets used to the idea — as answer to the tricky issue of cost."

Their idea is they are going to boil us like frogs.

They'll talk us into the pot, and then little, by little, they will raise the temperature by small increments, until we're soup.

Which is fine, because, really, child poverty is OUR fault don't you know?  Those of you going to work today - know that as you get your car started and find your way to the grocery store you're stocking shelves at, you police officers standing in the cold giving out a ticket, coal miners pulling on your blackened work-boots and cleaning snow off your truck, all of you are just being greedy by not giving more of your income to those in need.

People like Tracy Johnson.

Who is Tracy Johnson?  Well, she's one of the proponents of the guaranteed income plan referenced in the Straight.  To quote:

Tracy Johnson, a single parent, knows only too well the difficulty of getting by on limited means. Speaking during the presentation by First Call of its child-poverty report, Johnson explained that she is on welfare, and that she doesn’t have enough for her five children.

Read that again.

She is on welfare and doesn't get enough for her FIVE CHILDREN.

But it's OUR fault, right?

Tracy.

A little advice.

To quote Chris Rock, "Put down the dick!"

To the rest of us - don't be a frog in a pot, don't get in it, and if you feel like you're already there.. jump out.

North Korea.. suppose the U.S. said, "Not our problem".

Sorry South Korea.. we're gonna sit this one out.

I'm no fan of American industrial imperialism disguised as being "saviors of democracy".

But the reality is that when the shit hits the fan, over and over and over again, the world looks to the strong arm of the U.S. to back them up against despots and dictators.  When people were starving in Somalia, and the U.N. forces were being attacked.. it was the military might of the U.S. that allowed food to be delivered to the starving.

And then, when they sought (on U.N. direction mind you) to bring order to Somalia, the Somalian people turned on them.

And, as we can see with our own Bloc and NDP and their moaning about our continued presence in Afghanistan in a non-combat role, things aren't too different around here.

So.

As North Korea begins to shell South Korea, what say the western world, and the U.S. in particular, says, "Sorry, but we'll sit this one out."

Go talk to the U.N.

I can tell you one thing.

THIS Conservative, seeing how the Bloc and the NDP and the broader liberal world has viewed the effort in Afghanistan.. would say, fine.  No more. 

Aid for South Korea.. uh, nope.

Let them take care of themselves.

Putting the lives of our troops and our tax dollars at risk to, without doubt, bring about a chorus of moaning and complaining from the Bloc and the NDP just isn't worth it.

And South Korea gets walked over.. if a few million South Koreans are murdered by North Korea, well, life's a bitch, isn't it?

Maybe the day of coming to our neighbor's aid is over.

Maybe the new world paradigm is, or should be, every man for themselves.

Maybe the Bloc and the NDP have a point.

A "Liberal" Dose of Reality.

From the mouths of babes.

In today's Montreal Gazette, with reference to Ignatieff and Ray supporting Harper's plan to extend the Afghan mission:

The caucus, and the Liberal rank and file, have not bothered to conceal their anger at not being consulted by Iggy and Bob. This is particularly true in the Greater Toronto Area, and the Liberals are nothing if not a GTA party.

Really?

You mean they don't represent the thoughts and ideals of the broader country?

Where have I seen that before?

Oh yeah. 

Here.

And as the divide broadens between the severely normal in the rest of Canada and the latté crowd in the GTA, the Liberal party becomes more and more suspect in the minds of broader Canadians.. and now that the Afghan mission is coming to a debate in the House, one suspects that the Globe is right, and that the holes in the Liberal underwear will be exposed for all to see.

And, more interesting, is the suggestion that the Liberals might even lose a stronghold seat in Toronto.

If the latte crowd starts going south, and the Kokanee crowd abandoned them long ago.. that doesn't bode well for Mr. Igantieff.

And that would be sad, wouldn't it?

Message to Terrorists: We Win?

In a concerted response to growing threats of man-caused disasters, the Homeland Security Department responded quickly with x-ray scanners at 70 of the 450 airports in the United States.

In a recent review by the Government Accountability Office, it is reported that to outfit 60% of major U.S. Airports, it will cost American Taxpayers approximately $2.4 billion over the next 8 years.

Likewise, in Canada, it has been announced that 44 scanners will be purchased at a cost of approximately $11 million for airports in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver.  Of course this cost does not include training and operational costs.

Of course, there is a cost to this, and not just financially.

Recent media coverage has disclosed TSA employees disconnecting a passenger's urostomy bag, leaving him soaked in his own urine.  TSA employees asking a female cancer survivor to remove her prosthetic breast.

Will this solve the problem?

Hardly.

Next will be domestic terrorist attacks on trains and light rail transport in the U.S. and Canada where no body scanners, which has already prompted Italy to begin installing body scanners at train stations.

Of course, that will not solve the problem, because they'll just move on to bombing buses, which, as we recall, terrorists have already done on July 7, 2005 in London, so of course, we'll have to install them at all bus stops.

After that will be the deployment of body scanners at all public buildings, including shopping malls, government offices, schools and hospitals.

The logical conclusion?

With the expansion of communication technology, there really is no need for us to leave our homes.

We can do our work at home, we can have our children go to school online, and, eventually, the government will realize that it is more cost-effective to just prohibit travel at all, and to deliver our needs for food and whatnot directly to our homes, where we can live in safety.

And then we win, right?

Right?

BC Tries Polygamy: Welcome to the Marriage of Church and State

State: "Hello Mr. Church.. we finally meet!"

So.

As reported in the Vancouver Sun today, the B.C. Government is embarking upon a course which will, no doubt, allow for the legalization of polygamy.

And as the case proceeds, it brings to mind a quote of Pierre Trudeau as he brought about the end of the criminalization of homosexuality on December 12, 1967:

"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation".. what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code"

Now, according to the Crown representing the B.C. Government:

"The main task facing this court will be assessing and weighing evidence respecting harm: the harm of polygamy versus the harm of prohibition."

Really?

Was that the test the court grappled with when determining the issue of gay marriage? 

The harm v. the benefit?  Is that the only basis upon which gay rights rest.. that the "harm" of homosexuality is outweighed by the harm of prohibition?

I think, with all respect, he's missing the point.

The issue of polygamy is one of religious and cultural freedom.  Not only for fundamental Mormons, but for fundamental Muslims and traditional African cultures as well.

And I will be very surprised to see a Canadian court suggest that religious freedom is a matter of balancing the tenets of the religion under some "cost/benefit" analysis.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

Perhaps the new mantra will be "The Courts DO have a place in the Churches of the Nation."

Perhaps the notion of the separation of Church and State is about to die.

It will be interesting, I think, to see which religions obtain Government approval in Canada's brave new world.

The Financial Meltdown of Quebec.. there but for the grace of God goes Canada

Quebec: "Filthy English Canadians.. give me money

and then go away, or I shall taunt you a second time."

Universal daycare.. seems like a good idea, no?  They have it in Quebec, don't you know?  No matter your income, no matter your circumstances, from the single mother on assistance to the billionaire businessman, the government will pick up the tab to raise your child.

Spending money like drunken sailors to assure respect for French culture..  yup, they do that in Quebec too. 

And where has the culture of "government for everything" left la belle Province?

Well, the title of the Conference Board of Canada study today says it all:

Quebec’s Fiscal Situation: The Alarm Bells Have Sounded

While the Quebec government, as expected, paints a picture suggesting that all is in fact well, anyone looking at the Province from the outside knows different.  Wages are low, taxes are high.. a perfect storm. 

And there but for the grace of God goes Canada.

Everything that Quebec does which puts them at jeopardy is to some degree mirrored in the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada.  And the reason is obvious.  Liberals have no support in western Canada, and their key to the throne is wooing Quebec.  And to do so, they are most certainly not going to tell the Quebec citizens anything as honest as "there is no free lunch".

Think about this for a moment, and consider:

a) Jean Charest is currently battling for his political life, amidst growing talk of corruption in the Liberal party of Quebec, opening up the quite probable outcome of a Parti Quebecois government next election.  As reported in Macleans, Quebec is, no doubt, "the most corrupt Province" in Canada.

b) The Province of Quebec, as is very obvious from their effort to meddle in the efforts of Newfoundland trying to get out from under the yoke of a brutal hydro deal with Quebec, has no interest in "sharing the wealth" with any other Province when it presents itself, Danny Williams calling Quebec's efforts "highway robbery".

c) As is apparent from the Conference Board of Canada report, the Province of Quebec is Canada's bankrupt "red-headed stepchild" in the Canadian family.

So. 

Then.

Imagine you are in a business partnership.

Then - imagine that one of your partners, we'll call him "Jacques", is running up your line of credit, is lazy, and is refusing to cooperate with the rest of the partners when they try to improve business. 

Imagine further that Jacques has presented as being often dishonest and lacking any integrity.  For years, Jacques has brought less money into the firm than any other partner, but has consistently demanded higher pay than all of the other partners.  Finally, every time you have a partnership meeting, Jacques bellows and complains that his "special contribution" (?) to the firm is not respected, and, at the end of the day, he threatens to leave the firm.

Would anyone stop him?

Should we?

When the cats are away.. Climate Legislation goes out the Window

"PETM" - Paleo-eocene Thermal Maximum

- the most abundant period for plant

and animal growth in the world's history.

Climate changes.

Shocked? Yes, this conservative believes that "climate changes".


Ready to be shocked again..  I think man can impact climate.

I think there is a reality to it.

That's right, I'm a conservative and I agree with the concept of anthropomorphic climate change.

The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere most certainly has some impact on global temperatures, at least as far as I can understand after having educated myself as much as I can.

How much?

I don't know, and no one else does either.  It's at best, a guess.

And will the impact be uniformly negative?

Probably not.  Most likely, if temperatures increase, that will bode very well for Canada actually, increasing our growing season, increasing the ability to grow crops and therefore, increasing the availability of food.. which, let's be honest, isn't going to ever grow much in places like Ethiopia and the Sahara.

And much of Asia will be similarly impacted in a positive way.

The reality is that during the last major increase in global temperatures, during the paleocene–eocene thermal maximum, we saw come very interesting changes on our planet:

- INCREASED global rainfall, resulting, actually, in desalinization in the arctic ocean;
- In turn, this resulted in a global increase in plant growth - marked by thick tropical, sub-tropical, and deciduous forest cover around the globe;
- In turn, this resulted in a significant increase in the profusion of mammal life in the world.

Think about that, for just a moment.

More fresh water.

More plant growth (= food).

More mammals (=food).

So.. let's start with acknowledging some incontrovertible facts, shall we.

We don't know with any certainty, how much increases in carbon will impact the climate - but we do know that it could be causing an increase in global temperatures.  We do know that this would increase sea-levels, which would, obviously, have some negative impact on low-lying major populations at sea level.. which is a lot of people.

But we can also reasonably predict that increased temperatures will increase the global availability of fresh water, and will increase the ability to produce food - which is a global problem as well.

Against this backdrop, we have the great ponzi-scheme known as "cap and trade".  As has become a constant with the United Nations, there is an effort to use whatever tools are available to take money from the "haves" (us) and give it to the "have-nots" - which is populated to a great extent by despot leaders and corrupt pseudo-democracies.

Meanwhile..

Liberal Senators decide to take a day off.

And the Senate decides to put the breaks on a brutally flawed piece of environmental legislation that seeks to put people out of work in Canada to appease the U.N., for more than questionable outcomes.

Color me not too concerned.

And, here's the realllllly amusing thing.

While the media is quick to attack Stephen Harper this week for not being apoplectic over the unelected Senate overturning legislation from commons, no one seems concerned with the fact that the Liberal government wasn't exactly offended in the past when the Liberal senators WERE at work interfering with government legislation in the past.

So.

All in all.

Not caring that the climate bill got axed.

Not caring that our current government isn't marching, lock-step, with other countries to Cancun, hat-in-hand waiting to throw money at some new tin-pot dictator in the third world.

So Now Speaking Out Againts a Convicted Traitor is a "Hate Crime".. only in Canada.

Following up on my point yesterday about the stupidity of suggesting that Parliament build a statue to idolize a murderer and traitor, apparently wearing a T-Shirt which tries to point out the hypocrisy of naming a holiday after a criminal is now "hate crime".

Don't say anything bad about O.J. Simpson or Mike Tyson..  next thing you'll be in front of the Human Rights Stazi.

According to the Winnipeg Free Press today:

The Manitoba Métis Federation is outraged by T-shirts once for sale online that said, "Hang with me on Louis Riel Day."


The T-shirts, selling for $27.50 Canadian, showed Riel with a noose around his neck.

"I think it's like a hate crime," an outraged MMF president David Chartrand said by phone from Toronto on Wednesday. "People can't come along and re-assassinate my leader."

Don't you love the revisionist history lessons being foisted upon us?

Riel wasn't "assassinated", he was executed.

That is a fact.

And pointing out that he was executed, not "assassinated", by using satire is hardly "hate speech".

So.. spare me, please.

Should I see a statue being built in Ottawa, or read that a so-called "hate crime" investigation has been undertaken, I will immediately take up a collection to erect a plaque, with a quote of a truly great Canadian, our first Prime Minister, John A. MacDonald, perhaps selling t-shirts to raise funds..

Tyranny of the Minority and the Case for State Sanctioned Terrorism

Shall we erect a statue in Ottawa to pay homage to a terrorist? 

Today the Globe reports on, yet again, a further effort to further lionize Louis Riel.

Ignoring the rhetoric, Louis Riel was documented as mentally ill, considered himself divinely chosen to lead the Metis people, and took it upon himself to execute a man who was going, essentially, the same damn thing that he was doing.

Granted that Canada was in it's infancy then, and the notion of the borders of what was, and wasn't "Canada" was not completely clear..  nonetheless, Riel executed Thomas Scott, who did little more than seek to gather support to oppose the "provisional" government under Riel, and to speak out against Riel.

Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin now wants Parliament to reverse the terrorist's conviction. Not only that, he wants a statue of Riel on the grounds of Parliament Hill alongside the bronze images of former prime ministers and the Queen.

Lovely.

Washington has the incredible example of the Lincoln Memorial.. we suggest erecting a statue to a thug.  Can we embarrass ourselves any more than that?


It is interesting seeing the differences between the American and Canadian experience regarding the right of citizens to ignore the dictates of democracy.  It is interesting to even examine what "democracy" is, while looking at our relative histories.

Some time ago, in the U.S., there was an effort to expand the practice of slavery from the southern United States, and a responding effort to curtail and eventually end the practice from the North.

There was an election, and it brought about the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln.  Quite probably the greatest leader ever in the Western world.  And, after that election, when the South felt aggrieved by that outcome, they chose to secede from the Union, to form the Confederate States of America, electing Jefferson Davis as their President.

How many argue, today, that Lincoln acted inappropriately when he chose to ignore the secession and, eventually, went to war with the separatists?

Famously, in response to the effort of the south to separate, Lincoln said:

The central idea pervading this struggle, is the necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.

This issue is not simply one of historic interest.

We are awash in the delicate question that Lincoln raised back in 1864 here in Canada today.

Obviously, we have been dealing with the "elephant in the room" of Canadian politics since confederacy itself - the constant effort of the Province of Quebec to assert what it calls "sovereignty".

But the question relates, as well, to any Province in Canada, including here in Alberta, and, in fact, to any disenfranchised "group", no matter how small.

Because the example of the Civil War was, quite clearly, one segment of the American population that did not feel understood or respected by the majority.  And they did what they felt was their right - to stand against an "oppressor", to take arms against what they considered "tyranny".

Problem is, they were a part of a larger community.

And, under a democracy, THEIR point of view was not accepted.  That happens in democracy.  And, one might suggest rather appropriately, Lincoln felt the matter of establishing that democracy "is not an absurdity" was worth going to war over. 

Here in Canada, obviously, things are different.

When Quebec continually feels that they aren't getting their share, when they continually feel that they aren't sufficiently respected and adored, they assume they have the right of secession.  Ignoring the reality that the last time the question was raised, the majority of Quebec said, "non",  assume that 51% said "Oui".  That would mean that for 49% of the citizens of that Province, citizens who perhaps own property, pay taxes, and assume they are "Canadians", the will of the majority of the country is no protection against the will of a minority in THEIR country.


But perhaps this explains the continuing misguided respect for the despot Riel.

Here in Canada, historically, we have a notion, that on a certain level, terrorism is acceptable.  If Louis Riel was entitled to take arms against the Canadian government, and murder people who dared to disagree with him.. what say we to any disenfranchised minority.  The French in Quebec, the Environuts, the PETA lunatics, for that matter, the skinheads and the Klan.

Who decides who's cause entitles a minority to ignore the dictates of the majority, to ignore the law of the land, or even to take up violence as a tool to make their point?

Maybe nobody.

Maybe we need to stop with the tacit acceptance of violence and intimidation as a legitimate tool of democracy.  Whether it's the black bloc at the G20, or the Bloc Quebecois, perhaps there is a line that is not crossed.

Maybe in a true democracy, when you don't get the government you want, you are NOT entitled to take your ball and go home.

Or is democracy just an absurdity?

Nothing to Fear.. so be bold!

Searching for Liberty in Washington, D.C.

Why am I conservative?

Most likely because I don't like the idea of allowing someone to constantly have their hand on my shoulder and in my pocket.  I like the idea of encouraging myself and others to do their best.

Inherent in that idea is an aversion to being controlled and being manipulated.

The problem is, however, that there is a lot of control and manipulation coming from both extremes of the political spectrum - and if I'm being honest, I should be offended regardless of where that comes from, right or left.

Which got me to thinking..  it's funny how a bunch of seemingly disconnected occurrences suddenly seem to come together every once in a while..  so, bear with me while I connect the dots.

So.

Two weeks ago, I go to Washington, and attend the "Rally to Restore Sanity".. the dominant theme being that we can't allow ourselves to be manipulated by fear in the media, and in so doing, lose our ability to reason and think for ourselves.  And in the midst of the Rally they play clips from Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann and basically say, "Don't trust these guys..  they're playing you for chumps."

Then.

I come home.

My wife is reading, "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller.  For those of you unfamiliar with the play, it's essentially a story of the hysteria and the horror of the Salem Witch Trials - pitting neighbor against neighbor to "disclose" the evil among them - who are then put to trials that they can't possibly win, and then, predictably, are put to death.

More properly, it's an allegory on the part of Arthur Miller, holding up a mirror to the McCarthy "Witch Hunts", pitting citizens against each other by manipulating American fear of communism.

And it strikes me that it's all tying together.

We live in a time of uncertainty and change.  We are living in a time of economic stress and social stress.  These are perfect times for the unscrupulous to manipulate the masses through seeking to expand "uncertainty" into "fear".

Take a look around.

Ask yourself how much information is coming to us that appears designed to trigger "fear" in us.

From either side of the political spectrum.

It is no great exaggeration to suggest that the Human Rights Tribunals in Canada to a great extent exist to perpetuate fear.  They profit when we are told that expressing our concerns and complaints regarding others will bring society to ruin and will, necessarily, result in harm to those we disagree with.  Richard Warman is our modern Joe McCarthy - disclosing the "evil" in our midst..  and, like good sheep, many of us not wanting to be pointed at and accused ourselves are quick to get in step and nod our head in agreement with his ilk.

At the same time, we have a current government that downplays and completely ignores the reality that crime has been steadily reducing over the last decade.  They tell us we need more jails, to house those who are committing "unreported crimes".  They tell us to be afraid and to help them put more people in jail.

During the last great depression, our western society was also in turmoil.  People were scared and insecure regarding where they stood in society.

And while I'm no great fan of some of his specific policies, during his inaugural address, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a speech which bears repeating today:

I AM certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

Think about THAT for a moment, and then think about life today.

Fear is not our ally, in any sense.  It is little more than a weakness that allows others to exploit us.

And be certain (at the risk of being a  fear-monger myself) there are many amongst us who seek to harness your capacity for fear to their end.

So don't let them.

Live your life.

Do your best.

Be aware that the world will no more end if the Human Rights Tribunals are wound up than if Michael Ignatieff is voted in as our next Prime Minister.

As Canadian clergyman Basil King (not Goethe as suggested in "Almost Famous") once said:

"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."

Thoughts on the passing of a local icon.. Bob Babki. A life well-lived.

Robert F. (Bob) Babki

(The following is a letter I have written to our local newspaper.  While my blog typically relates to National and International issues - on October 30, 2010, a retired local lawyer and recently elected counsel person, Bob Babki, passed away, and I think that his example deserves a space in my blog today - even for those from outside of Lethbridge who, perhaps, have never heard his name.  Because while there were times that Bob and I disagreed in the Court room and during political campaigns, his passion for doing what he thought was "right" was a passion that I think is important to recognize.)


Aristotle is quoted as saying, "The law is reason free from passion".

Aristotle never met Bob Babki.

It was with tremendous sadness that I learned of the passing of Bob Babki. While I could not claim Bob as a close friend, I considered him a wonderful mentor in my own practice as a lawyer, and a great roll model for the citizens of the City of Lethbridge. Prior to his decision to run for counsel, we sat down and discussed the idea and he was truly uncertain of his chances - at which time I said, "Bob, you have no idea how many people in this city respect you and need you on that counsel." The result of the election proved my point when he captured a seat with the second highest vote count for all candidates.

During the early years of my own career I had the opportunity to engage in trial work against Bob Babki, I argued against him in the Court of Appeal, and, to no one's surprise who knows Bob and I there were times where the words that passed between us in the halls of the courts were somewhat less than measured and cordial. But that's what happens when you care. And Bob cared for his clients and his community to the core of his being.

The most indelible recollection I have of Bob as a lawyer occurred not long before his retirement when the two of us found ourselves arguing in the Court of Appeal. The original date of this Appeal was adjourned when Bob had to undergo heart surgery - yet, a few months after undergoing bypass surgery, Bob was back at his job and the Appeal proceeded in Calgary.

The results of the Appeal are not really important - but suffice to say Bob carried out his efforts with great skill as he always did. The real measure of the man, however, came after the hearing, as we changed into our street clothes in the lawyer's lounge downstairs at the old Court of Appeal.

It was there that I learned that not only did Bob Babki effectively go from the hospital bed to the Court of Appeal for his client - he did it for free.  While he probably should have been recuperating from his surgery, he was prepared and conducting an Appeal for his client without getting paid penny one.

Why?

Because for Bob Babki, the law was NOT "reason free from passion". He lived a life too short in time, but certainly not too short on passion and caring for those around him. In an age of self-interest masked as pseudo-compassion, Bob Babki was the real deal. I consider myself and all citizens of Lethbridge fortunate for having experienced that passion.

Thanks Bob, you most certainly will be missed.

Quick Post re: Obama; India; U.N.Security Counsel

Obama criticises India's silence on Myanmar

.
.
.

Obama endorses India's security council bid
.
.
.

Sometimes stupidity and hypocricy speaks for itself.

Compare: The "Evil" Alberta Conservatives and the "Caring" Ontario Liberals

Spending money like McGuinty Liberals..

Interesting article this morning in The Intelligencer.

Apparently, Ontario has so much money to throw around that they have now announced a new scholarship program for University Students pursuing a PhD.

75 scholarships of $40,000.00 per year.  $50 million over the next four years.

I suppose one might question the increase of spending considering the economic times, but to a great extent education is a reasonable future investment.

Problem is..  the scholarships aren't available to Ontario students.  They aren't even available to Canadian students.  They are strictly for foreign students.

Yes.. and while the Dalton McGuinty and his friends at the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star seem to think this is a great idea, others aren't so sure.

Like, say, Ontario students.

While McGuinty talks about vague and impossible to substantiate benefits of drawing international students to Ontario, the very real and demonstrated reality is that Ontario students, the children of Ontario taxpayers by the way, are paying some of the highest tuition in Canada.

As reported in the Intelligencer:

In 2010-11 Ontario students will pay $6,307 a year or about $1,500 more than B.C. tuition, $4,000 more than tuition in Newfoundland and Quebec, for example.

Alberta, by comparison, is about middle of the road - with annual tuition averaging about $5,318.00 per year.

On the funding side - it is curious that the miserly Progressive Conservative government in Alberta provides annual funding to its Universities of some $25,000.00 per year per student.

Ontario's "kindler, gentler" Liberal government?  A paltry $10,000.00 per student, per year.

Curious.

Aren't the Liberals supposed to be all about "education", looking down their noses at Conservative "flat earthers" and such?  Yet education in conservativeland is a priority, and in Ontario, it's a luxury.  With a special place in their heart for non-tax paying foreign students.

McGuinty is concerned that Ontario is lagging behind other jurisdictions in attracting foreign students.

Dalton - here's a hint: stop providing a crappy University experience.  Maybe Ontario should be a little less concerned with their politically correct agenda in half-assed Universities like Carleton.

But alas - Ontario Liberals will follow the typical liberal agenda of throwing money after every half-baked idea like reviewing whether or not the KFC "Double Down Sandwich" should be banned.

And who can forget the $1 billion waste of taxpayers dollars in the Ontario eHealth scandal.

That's what happens when people put stock in every half-baked idea that comes to mind.  Tax dollars get wasted, and the people who really need help and assistance don't get it.

Conservative = spend reasonable money in a few places where it's needed.

Liberal = spending money all over the place, with the net result that in the few places where it's needed.. there isn't enough. 

Jim Prentice Resigns.. and social conservatives applaud.

Jim Prentice

The Conservative Party of Canada.

Used to be the Progressive Conservative Party. 

Sadly, Bryan Mulroney lead the party to the most ignominious defeat in this history of the party, and essentially assured it's demise..   only made all the more pathetic by a final curtain call where he tries to explain how the once leader of our country took cash in brown paper bags from a greasy German criminal.

The result?  Well, effectively we handed over the policy control of our country, and the Judicial system, for perhaps generations to come to half-witted Liberals who set a wonderful example of "moral flexibility", where the ends always justify the means - including massive theft from Canadian taxpayers in the Adscam.

Ultimately, however, reminiscent of the recent hammering of Barack Obama, the citizens had enough and were willing to seek out any port in a storm - and took refuge with the Conservative Party of Canada.

Amazingly, the Conservatives have held on to power with a minority government for quite some period of time.. mostly, I would suggest, because the public is, fundamentally, conservative (small "c") in principle..  but the clouds are forming around the party these days, and the resignation of Jim Prentice from politics is hopefully not the harbinger of things to come.

Prentice was exactly what the new conservative movement needs.  Fiscal conservatism, with an intelligent, nuanced understanding of the complexity of government and society - being open to change where in our best interests, but eschewing "change for changes sake".

I'm concerned that he feels a little bit lonely, however.

More and more we are seeing the party slip towards dim-witted ideology as it's refuge - no doubt seeking to appease the loud base.

Problem is - and Barack Obama got this message loud and clear - is it's not the base that we have to appeal to.  It's the middle.  It's the undecided vote.  They swing.  The base isn't going anywhere.. yet here we are, devoting our efforts to screwing about with the census, building new jails and making penalties stiffer - even though by all barometers, crime has been steadily reducing.  Now we're leaning on Craigslist to remove advertising for escorts and appealing the Ontario prostitution decision (even as there is, apparently, another serial killer possibly on the loose in the lower mainland of B.C. praying on street walkers).

I'm going to make a bold prediction, here and now.

If the party continues on the trend to appease the loud farther-right base - we will lose the next election to a Liberal majority government.

While some may rub their hands in glee with Prentice's resignation, seeking him as a "red" Tory - their happiness may be short lived, as they ready themselves for Prime Minister Ignatieff.

At a time where conservatives in Canada should be readying themselves for a dominant performance a la the Republican Party in the U.S. mid-term elections last week, we are, instead, creeping towards irrelevance because we are, more and more, becoming a party dominated by ideology, not intelligence.

Mr. Harper - your move.

Maturing Conservativism, "Controlled" Free Enterprise, and Potash

Well.

Stephen Harper has put his foot down on the BHP effort to acquire Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan.


Here's a few observations to think about.

Firstly, I'll point out the irony of the Globe and Mail complaining about this move, suggesting that "On the Potash file, PM’s pragmatism outweighed his principle."

Apparently the Globe is now the bastion of pure laissez-faire economics..

Who saw that coming?

No, in reality the rag that challenges the Prime Ministers "principals" in fact, is a mouthpiece for the "anything but Harper" types in the GTA, and will find a way to complain about ANYTHING that Harper does - even when it's directly in line with what their good friends Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff want.

But enough on the hypocrisy and the complete absence of principal from the writers with the Globe.

The more interesting issue is implicit in their facile little article - namely, how we reconcile free market conservatism with the decision to block the Potash Corp. takeover.


I'm no economist.

But it strikes me as fundamental to theories of a vibrant free market that, at a minimum, allowing a pure monopoly is not consistent with a functioning free market.

So - the idea of allowing large companies to get larger on a certain level creates concern for any free market capitalist.  Witness the AIG fiasco.  At a certain point, when the market is not occupied by various competing groups - the market is at risk.

The modern free market - be remain free and vibrant - in my opinion has to guard against domination by one group.  And I think that's true globally and domestically.

As Ed Stelmach commented, in response to the potash issue - how would we feel in Alberta if ALL drilling and all oil leases were being dominated by ONE corporation?

That isn't a free market.

That isn't consistent with the inherent concept of competition regulating a free market.

And so, while some suggest the decision of the Harper government flies in the face of free market capitalism, a nuanced consideration of the concept might suggest that, in fact, Harper is seeking to protect capitalism.

Or not.

But it's something to think about without the ideological hypocrisy of John Ibbitson and the Globe and Mail.

Freedom, is not free. Pass that on to Ian Harvey and his white poppy pals.

Well.

Today I read again about the "white poppies" being sold, no surprise, in Ottawa.  Apparently, the traditional red poppies sold by the Canadian Legion, in memorial to our lost soldiers in wars past, is not "politically correct" according to some. According to Ian Harvey, a so-called "activist" in the White Poppy Coalition:

The red Legion poppy, in my opinion, represents the nostalgia and romanticizing of war.

I alluded this past week to my attendance in Washington, D.C., walking through the World War II Memorial, walking down the reflecting pool to the Lincoln Memorial and then walking quietly past the Vietnam memorial.

These Memorials, and the red poppies we wear for a few weeks each year, are intended to leave a fundamental message - that we have and have had in our midst people of tremendous courage, who understand the need to stand against bullies and despots who would harm the innocent to their own benefit.

These people are not abstractions, they are not fantasy - neither the evil and malignant, nor the decent and selfless - the great numbers of soldiers who have paid with their lives to protect others.

Is it important to value and reflect upon peaceful efforts to resolve conflict - people like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandella?  Clearly.  But is it necessary to turn up our noses and to diminish the one day each year that we are asked to reflect on the price is sometimes required to pay for peace?  Is it necessary to suggest that taking a moment of our lives to appreciate the sacrifice others made is "romanticizing" war?

Really?

Let's be candid.  People like Ian Harvey should be spit upon.  They are scum of the worst order.  There is nothing to prevent us from memorializing peaceful effort to resolve differences - but it doesn't have to be on Remembrance Day, it doesn't have to seek to intentionally deflect attention from the red poppy campaign, and it doesn't have to deride those who have given everything they had to give so that some pompous ass like Ian Harvey can pretend that he is somehow making society a better place.

Who is Ian Harvey?  Well, he is originally from the U.K., moved to the U.S. in 1966, and was teaching school there until he was suspended for using his job as a teacher to spew his viewpoints to his students.  What kind of views?  Well, he refers to himself as a "progressive", but suggests that "radical" or "anarchist" would be accurate as well. students.  While he suggests that he's a peace activist, he is curiously silent on the issue of Islamic extremists who murder and kill in the name of Allah - but he'll write you a blue streak about the evil of the American state.  Lucky for the U.S., and unlucky for Canada - he's now in our midst - making a living as a translator.

He's typical.  He wants.. no demands the freedom that the western democratic experiment provides - and then uses that freedom to spit upon the system that creates it.

I had the good fortune to visit the Smithsonian Museums last week, and came across the story of someone who fully understands what "freedom" is all about, and what it costs to retain it - Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient, Henry "Red" Erwin.  I was very moved by his story and was pleased to find it on the internet to be able to share it here. I know it is more than your typical 30 second soundbite - but I would urge you to watch the video as a whole.  I think his effort deserves that.


Henry Erwin from Congressional Medal of Honor on Vimeo.


As I told my wife last week, "what they did matters".  The words that I write here pale in comparison to the words, and the experience behind the words of Henry Erwin:

"I don't say I'm a hero.  We have more freedoms in this country than we realize.. but, if the youngsters will look and see what price has been paid, 'cause freedom is not free."

Well said, Mr. Erwin.  And thank you for your effort and the effort of so many others given so that I, and others, can do what I'm doing right now.  Enjoying freedom.

Go out and buy a RED poppy today, and take a moment to remember.

The U.S. Mid-terms.. lessons for CONSERVATIVES

Well.

Buh-by Nancy Pelosi.

While small "c" conservatives may be somewhat jubilant watching Barack Obama and his friends walking face-first into the glass wall of the mid-term elections, it is prudent, perhaps, to take stock in what happened and what, perhaps, this means - not only for conservatives south of the border, but for conservatives in Canada as well.

The message, I suggest, is not that "liberal" government is not to be trusted - but that "government" is not to be trusted.

The mood during the U.S. elections was surly and angry, and it wasn't just a response to the Barack Obama health care effort (though certainly that was profoundly unpopular for many, many Americans).

The message was, "we don't trust government to solve our problems, and we think that we would prefer to leave money in the hands of the private sector than putting faith in government bureaucrats who are beholden to interest groups of all stripes to take that money and use it in society's best interests."

Imagine that, following up on the debacle of Lehman Brothers and AIG..  but, there you have it.

The public has a strong sense that a burgeoning government debt is bad policy, regardless of how laudable the reasons.

Hence the "tea party", heaping criticism not only on the Democrats, but Republicans as well.

The victory speeches of successful Republicans referenced that in spades, using phrases like "getting back to who we USED to be".

And while Canadian conservatives may laugh at the Democratic misfortune in the U.S., recall that our deficit in Canada has grown significantly under the Conservative government watch, and suggestions of spending billions of dollars on new prisons, and the somewhat cavalier acceptance of the recent fighter jet contracts may come back to haunt Stephen Harper, particularly if Michael Ignatieff - who was, after all, a conservative in his past life - begins to sharpen the liberal pencils and brings in a more fiscally responsible budget proposal than have the Conservatives to date.

Get the message my friends.. it's the economy that matters to Canadians.

Not the census.

Not fear mongering about needing to "get tough on crime".

Not even, at present, health care.

Ralph Klein was successful in holding power in Alberta based, primarily, on a message that less government is better than more.  That's a sentiment that appears to have spread now to metropolitan Toronto of all places, and that's a sentiment that Stephen Harper would be wise to recognize.

Sometimes "less" is "more".

The "Ignorant Hillbilly" is Home from Washington, D.C.

Standing in the "Belly of the Beast".

So.

I'm back from Washington, after spending a very pleasant week with my wife attending a conference, seeing the sights, and attending a Collaborative Law conference (if you find yourself or someone you know in the midst of divorce - check it out, it can greatly reduce the pain of divorce).

I attended the "Rally to Restore Sanity", and found it, well..  pretty sane.

Jon Stewart went out of his way to essentially say, "the media should be embarrassed".

Poking fun at Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, he essentially said that to get through difficult times, we do not profit from fear-mongering and polarization - which to a great extent is encouraged by a media seeking ratings ahead of responsibility.

Fear sells.

Calm and nuanced discussion doesn't.

Unfortunately, it was quite apparent that for many in the crowd, the point was lost.

Coming into the event, Stewart sought to encourage signs from the crowd that did not attack or at worst, were just silly slogans, showing that the anger and fear which controls so much of politics today is unnecessary.

One of my favorites?

Unfortunately, there was still a significant amount of anti-conservative anger and insult - Keith Olbermann-style "wit" (using the term loosely).. though not surprisingly, no anti-Obama or anti-liberal "wit".  But then I'm sure I was probably one of maybe a hundred conservatives in the crowd. 

No matter.  The Democrats are being sent a pretty loud message I'm guessing today.  And well it should be.

Too often the effort to cross the divide is insult and attack, instead of communication and concession.. and for independents and conservatives, that hardly translates into sticking with Obama's "campaign of hope".

One sign I found most irritating was a very trendy white, upper-class looking couple beside me, holding up signs quoting Bill Maher, stating:

Media, could you please stop pitting the ignorant vs. the educated and framing it as a "debate."



This is why hard-core liberalism is on the wane.  Telling people they are too stupid is hardly a way to make new friends.  And it's hardly in keeping with Jon Stewart's message - essentially that we're all in this together.

I wished I had brought my own sign in response:

"I have a University education, and my vote, my feelings and my fears, don't count for more than anyone else."

And Bill Maher is probably the worst offender - because he used to be something more.  We don't expect much of Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, or anyone on CNN.  But Maher used to be seen as a relatively intelligent critic of political matters - and now he's become a cheap shill, a side-show carny for the extreme left who betrays his childish fear that if we don't see things HIS way, we are doomed.

The most telling video clip of Bill Maher's dismissal of anyone who disagrees with him - and which, I fear, exemplifies the thoughts of those on the far left of the political spectrum which are not often expressed as honestly as Maher expressed them is here:

Did you catch that?  We, on the somewhat right, are just a bunch of "ignorant hillbillies".

Word to Maher and his ilk - your smug, self-important act has grown tiresome.

And the vast majority of people - the "severely normal" who don't see political debate in terms of their team "winning", with all of the nuanced thought of a drunken English football hooligans (yes, that would be you, Bill Maher) aren't being influenced by your babble.

Score points, today, for Jon Stewart's effort to raise the bar, as "sorta left" as he may be.