The PC Mother Ship..

So.

Here we are. 

The week following the gates being opened for the battle to control, as Ted Morton refers to it, "The Conservative Mother Ship".

Clearly, the most logical pick for PC Leadership would be Ted Morton.  The Party is clearly facing it's harshest challenge from the disaffected conservatives, tired of a government which has chosen to try and spend its way out of trouble, over and over again - and a party which has been more intrusive in the lives of Albertans than anyone would have predicted during the once proud conservative days of Peter Lougheed.

But the death star PC Party of Alberta is damaged and dying.

And while Ted Morton may well be the Darth Vader of the party, turning his back on the "evil" of a PC Party having lost its way at the last moment - like Vader, his effort at conversion is too little, too late.

And already, the galactically stupid in the party are lining up to oppose Morton.  Just returning from Edmonton this past week-end, the fear is palpable that the government bureaucratic trough may dry up under Morton, and support is already building for ABM candidates (Anybody but Morton).

And here is just a small example of why the PC Party has to go.

I spoke with the owner of a small Alberta corporation who designs laser-based gas sensors.  Relatively inexpensive devises that can detect relatively small traces of various gases in the air, including CO2, but he can't seem to get the Government interested in using these devises.

You see, the people on the government trough, the current environmental engineering firms, currently rely on labor-intensive, less accurate means of testing gas.  Which cost the government massively more money to provide massively poorer results.

But that doesn't matter.

Because "it's how it is done."

Looking to current debate over the alleged leakage of CO2 at carbon injection sites, this gentleman advises me it would be relatively simple to set up a series of monitors downwind of the sites prior to carbon injection and after - and for very little money, the government could remotely monitor those sites and could advise very easily what, if any, change has occurred pre- and post- injection.

Simple.

But it won't happen under the PC Government.

Because the companies they do business with would rather keep doing things the same old way, less accurate and more expensive. 

Why?  Well, I would be shocked if the current government contractors aren't spending money going to Premier Dinners and such.  This is how PC Business is done. 

Same old same old.

Time to finish off the death star "mother ship".

Time to think about that upstart rebel Alliance.

Alberta PC Party.. the "Mother Ship" for Conservatives?

Didn't I suggest that Morton pushed out Stelmach to seek leadership of the PC Party of Alberta?

Well.  Now that the cat's out of the bag..  Morton is calling on all conservatives to return to the PC fold, calling the PC Party the "mother ship" for conservatives.

Rumours of Danielle Smith seeking leadership of the PC Party appear to be baseless, using her words, "delusional".

Clearly Morton is the man, that is, unless the galactically stupid in the party happen to take hold and choose someone like Alison Redford. 

I can't see it - certainly, the tax-dollar inhaling bureaucracy surrounding the legislature will scream for a "fiscal moderate".. ie) "free spending liberal" to take the reins, but that would be an error of epic proportions, that could deliver the seat of government to the Wild Rose Alliance.  COULD it happen?  Certainly..  never underestimate the ability of the PC Party of Alberta to be out of touch with the masses.

And rest assured, the PC Party of Alberta is out of touch.

Why is this?  I would call it the Ellsberg Theory of Power Stupidity.

As you may know, Daniel Ellsberg was a former U.S. Marine Lieutenant, Pentagon Military advisor under Lyndon Johnson and RAND corporation employee who, in 1971 leaked what became known as "The Pentagon Papers", disclosing widespread lies and deception by the U.S. Government against their citizens respecting the Vietnam War.

While I think Ellsberg has become somewhat enamoured of himself, he made a very interesting observation in giving advice to Henry Kissinger as he was entering government for the first time.  Essentially, he spoke of the danger of being "on the inside":

...it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself.


"You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours."

While the faces have changed somewhat over time - the essential power structure of the PC Party of Alberta has been "on the inside" of government in this Province since August 30, 1971.  Going on forty years.  One government.  40 years of "knowing things that you don't know".

Think about that.  And think about what Ellsberg told Kissinger.

40 years of thinking you know more than everyone else.

40 years of becoming "something like a moron".

And then think about Ted Morton's musings that the PC Party is "the mother ship".

Analysing the PC Hangover.. the Morning After the Night Before

Well.

Today we wake up with the knowledge that the next Premier of this Province will not be Ed Stelmach.

As the saying goes, we live in interesting times.

This past week, I was having lunch with a former PC MLA we were crystal-balling where things were going in our Province.  I suggested that I was curious to see Ted Morton's new website - with Ted looking very "leader-like", with nary a nod to Premier Stelmach..  and I mused that Ted would be leading the PC Party into the next election.

Ron was sceptical, as there is no requirement of a leadership review in the PC Party until after the next election, unless a motion to require a review was passed by a majority of members.

I suggested that, noting Ted Morton's website, a not-so-subtle message may have been given to the Premier that he can go easy, or he can go hard - and I posited that the Premier was likely to step down.

Well.

Call me Nostradamus.

So - what now?

Well, no longer being a PC member, I don't have any "insider" gossip to suggest what's going on - but I think we can speculate.

Firstly - when David Swann suggests that the PC Party is losing to support to the Wild Rose Alliance AND the Liberals - well, as is typical of Dr. Swann, he's delusional.  Unhappy PC Members (like myself) have moved to one party - and that party is the Wild Rose Alliance.

That being said - there will be some constituencies where the split vote could give the odd seat to the Liberal party - but those will be few and far between.

The real risk of being deposed from the power is clearly from the Wild Rose Alliance.

And so, forget about Dave Hancock, Thomas Lukaszuk, Gene Zwozdesky, Iris Evans - or anyone north of Calgary.  Been there, done that - the party will not go that route again.  The PC Party is all about holding onto power - and the conventional wisdom inside the party is that money buys elections.. so expect the leader to come from oiltown.

Now - Ron Liepert could, perhaps have made a charge - but his handling of health care could fairly be said to be abysmal and while he's now the Minister of Energy, he doesn't have a legitimate shot.

I've heard rumours that Alison Redford might be interested.  Not going to happen - she's too green and hasn't done anything to distinguish herself.  As a lawyer, I can tell you that the handling of Justice looks like Barack Obama's wet dream - all full of heavy-handed government intervention and spending without appreciable results.

Lloyd Snelgrove?  Not from Calgary and, as President of the Treasury Board since 2006, and therefore the over-seer of the worst bout of pointless over-spending since the Getty government - he's the last person the party will see as the leader-to-be.

They want a fiscal hawk, and, just as important, they know full-well that as bright and dedicated as Premier Stelmach has been - he hasn't shown the personal charisma to capture the imagination of Albertans.  Take a good look at the PC caucus - and ask, "who fits this bill?"

The closest one, clearly, is Ted Morton.

Look to see a tepid leadership race, perhaps with Lukaszuk, Snelgrove and Liepert and at least one woman for appearances sake - probably Iris Evans or Alison Redford - going through the motions, possibly to raise their profile for future shot.  Ultimately, however, the "election" of Ted Morton will amount to a coronation.

Too little, too late?

A lot could happen between now and 2013, but Nostradumus says, look to a PC Minority government with a strong showing by the Wild Rose - resulting in a government than can no longer take average Albertans for granted, and which will have it's toes kept to the fire by a true conservative conscience.

Premier Stelmach Resigning Prior to Next Election - PC Party on the Ropes?

According to reports this afternoon, Premier Ed Stelmach announced today that he will not be leading the PC Party of Alberta into the next election now not anticipated to be called until perhaps March of 2013.

According to reports, the Premier stated:

“Upon much reflection ... I have determined after 25 years of public service, I will not serve another full term,” Stelmach, with his wife Marie at his side, told reporters at a hastily called news conference at the legislature."

While I have recently resigned from my involvement and have ceased my support for the PC Party of Alberta, I can honestly say that I am still saddened by this announcement.  While I certainly did not know the Premier well, on those few occasions that I had the good fortune to share a meal or have a conversation with him, he always struck me as intelligent and sincere in his intentions to make Alberta a better place.

However, in reviewing the Premier's Announcement, as much as I admire him, I believe he was mistaken in two respects when he wrote:

"There is a profound danger that the next election campaign will focus on personality and US style negative, attack politics that is directed at me personally. The danger is that it could allow for an extreme right party to disguise itself as a moderate party by focussing on personality – on me personally."

I don't believe this to be the case.

For one thing, at the present time I have chosen to support the Wild Rose Alliance and am considering seeking the nomination as a candidate for that party in the next election.  A review of my blog, I think, colors me as anything but an "extreme right wing" individual, and in fact, I have been described at various times as a "red tory", "closet Liberal", and the like.. mostly because more than anything I despise blind adherence to political ideology.  A stupid conservative idea is no better than a stupid liberal idea.

My impression from being in contact with other Wild Rose Alliance members is similar - and I believe the election of Danielle Smith sent a clear message that this is not a party of extreme social conservatives.  There were other candidates that may have fit that bill - but Danielle Smith was not one of them.

With respect to the suggestion of the coming election being premised on personal "attacks", again, I would suggest this suggestion is misplaced.  This past evening I was in conversation with a Wild Rose MLA, and prior to hearing of our Premier's announcement, both this individual and myself discussed the fundamental decency of Mr. Stelmach and his sincerity.. the problem with the PC Party not being one of an incompetent or disingenuous leader, but being one of a old and tired machinery than seems more responsive to outside interests and its own bureaucracy than to average Albertans.

With respect - the concerns evident with the PC Party of Alberta are not personal concerns.  They are concerns born of a party which has lost its way - a party without identity and a party without direction.

Clearly there has been major internal strife within the party with a battle between the few remaining fiscal conservatives and the liberals in conservative clothing who are not prepared to let go of their appetite for burgeoning government and tax dollars - and the announcement of our Premier is no doubt a symptom of that disarray.

The message?

The most powerful political force in Canadian history perhaps is on the ropes...  eyes swelled shut, nose bleeding, the young challenger sees a clear opening.  There is fear and uncertainty in the eyes of the aged warrior.. and the young fighter begins to circle, waiting it's moment to deliver the decisive blow to end the fight and crown the new title holder.

Toronto Protestors.. how bad is it when you offend Jerry Garcia and Janis Joplin?

The Greatful Dead..   hard core neo-cons!

Last night I watched the documentary, "Festival Express", and learned a little about the roots of Canada's "protest movements".

The movie documents the CN Rail road trip across Canada by Janis Joplin, the Grateful Dead, the Band, Buddy Guy, Ian and Sylvia, Delaney Bonnie & Friends, and others, putting on concerts in Toronto, Winnipeg and Calgary.

The trip occurred over the summer of 1970, when this writer was only 8 years old, so I really don't have any recollection - but growing up in the transition from the 60's to the 70's, I recall the musical atmosphere and have always been a huge fan of music from the 60's and 70's and have always harbored some wish that I was born about 5 or 6 years earlier to have really experienced the period beyond books and documentaries.

One of the most fascinating parts of the documentary, however, related to the protests surrounding the event.

For reasons that are difficult to comprehend, protesters in Toronto felt that paying $10.00 for a full day concert (or $14.00 for two days) was offending their sensibilities, and up to 2000 protesters tried to rush the gates, resulting in altercations between police and so-called "protesters", including a police officer struck in the head by a brick as he was sitting on his horse.

And this is where it gets really interesting.

Because here we have counter-culture icons, Jerry Garcia and friends, appealing for decent behavior, and later putting on a free concert in the park to achieve order.  Later, as they are interviewed, they express unreserved sympathy for the police and contempt for the protesters.

Gerry Garcia (Grateful Dead):

These kids came without money in their pockets.  They had no intention of paying.
So just to get them away from the gates so that paying customers could make it in, was really in my best interest, and I didn't mind doing it.

You know, the word was out that the protests had, you know, fucked the promoters, and that despite the music and despite the pleasure that the people who were attending were having with the music, it was going to be a financial disaster.

Well, I'd like to see them, you know, get as many people as can possibly come. Because it's a... there's a fantastic amount of... Great, great line-up of talent, you know.


Yeah, well, it's funny... if you figure... if you figure... people say the tickets are too high, but if you figure, it's less than a dollar per super group, you know?

Bob Weir (Grateful Dead):

And all these kids got uptight because the admission was too high, and they decided they were going to have a riot. They busted some cop's head, man. They busted it wide open.  He's got a plate in his head now and he may still be in critical condition.


Is that worth the fucking dollars?


Woman: Okay, but... but how many kids got busted wide open too?

Weir: Who started it?

Later - Weir again:

These people weren't looking for free music, they were looking for trouble. They were looking for an excuse to bust cops' heads. They were, you know, pathologically unauthoritarian.  I know, I'm... I'm that way myself.

Jerry Garcia - the lead man for the Grateful Dead, supporting the police and decrying protesters.

Why?

Well, it was obvious, really.  The promoter and performers incur real costs to travel to and from their venue, to rent the venue, to acquire the equipment needed to put on the event, and yet Toronto protesters felt "entitled" to access the venue for free.

When the event rolled into Calgary, things got even more interesting.

Rod Sykes, the diminutive (in stature and in intellect apparently) mayor of Calgary got on the bandwagon for the protests, and demanded that the promoters allow youth in for free as well, becoming very angry and offensive, suggesting that the promoter was trying to make a "quick buck".

Really? They wanted to receive pay for going to the trouble and expense of putting on a two day concert?  How dare they?

So.. apparently, the culture of entitlement isn't a recent phenomenon.  It appears, shock of shocks, that even back in 1970 there were groups of petulant children who felt that those who worked for money should be mocked and compelled to hand-over the fruit of their efforts for nothing.

Now, guessing that these spoiled children would be in their 20's at the time - now, some 40 years later, that would put them in their 60's wouldn't it?

For your consideration:

Jack Layton - 60 years old

Michael Ignatieff - 63 years old

Gilles Ducceppe - 63 years old

Think about that for a moment.

The Big Not Listen of the Liberal... err.. "Alberta" Party

Good Crazy..

And bad crazy.

According to Albert Einstein, "Insanity" is:

..doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

This is the story of the Alberta Liberal Party.

They keep trying to sell a product that Albertans don't want..  small "l" liberal ideology.

Over and over again, they sell their tired brand of modern socialism, and over and over again, Albertans say, "no thank-you". 

So.

In the midst of the PC Party's darkest days, the new idea for our liberal friends in Alberta is to change their label.

Same policy...  you know, hand-outs, not hand ups.  Giving people fish instead of encouraging them to fish for themselves..  same old same old.

To remove any doubt at all - they now have an MLA as of this week..  and, shocking, it's former Liberal leadership contender Dave Taylor.

Sure they aren't called liberals, and they have not a speck of red anywhere on their website..  but what they call "moderate" politics, when you examine it, is really the same liberal dogma. 

When polls have the PC Party and the Wild Rose Alliance running neck and neck..  the suggestion that what Albertans really want is a liberal party with a new name is, well, insanity.

The Wild Rose Alliance is growing because the Conservative party isn't truly conservative.  Spending has run amok, what used to be the party of "stay the course" has become the party of change, change back, change and change back again.

Albertans want and demand a conservative government.  We demand a government which spends our tax dollars frugally, a government which intrudes on our lives only when necessary, and a government which allows for personal initiative to be rewarded - not penalized.

The "Big Listen"?

Hardly. 

The "Big Listen to Things We Want to Hear" more like it.  And come election time, they will receive the same message liberals have been receiving in this Province for decades.  No thank you.

And then, they will do the same thing over and over again.

Insanity.

Olbermann shown the door.. An Embarrassment, Even by MSNBC Standards

Well.

The network giving airtime to that liberal shill Rachel Maddow, has decided that Keith Olbermann is too much of an embarrassment, even for them.

Color me pleased, but not really surprised.

While the left side media is falling all over themselves blaming incendiary politics for the Tucson shootings, it was apparent that Olbermann was a match just waiting to start a fire.

And lord help them if some PETA/Greenpeace extremist decided to shoot Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck while wearing an Olbermann t-shirt.

So, the most vile political mouthpiece on the air, is on the air no more. Pity. No matter, I'm sure he'll show up in Obama's collection of former "neutral" media types now in the employ of his administration.

Ironic that MSNBC initially suspended Olbermann for donating money to Democratic candidates when it was 3 years ago that MSNBC ran a story criticizing the news media for being too obviously biased. As reported by MSNBC at that time:

Msnbc.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Liberal bias in the media? I'm shocked and appalled.

Well, maybe not shocked.

So, perhaps the surprise isn't that Olbermann got axed, but that they put up with his act as long as they did.

Good-bye Keith, and "Good Riddance"...

"It's something unpredictable, but in the end is right.
I hope you had the time of your life."

New Liberal Attack Ads.. Yawn.

"No, no, no - you're not listening. 
Higher corporate taxes and
higher government spending will CREATE jobs."

Really, Michael?

This is the best you can do?  I can think of about three issues just off the top of my head that would make more sense to raise than the fighter jets and the lack of corporate tax increases.

But let's go with what they have.

Firstly.

The fighter jets.

To summarize what the ads are going to say to the average Canadian:

We know we, the Liberals, committed the country to the development of these jets, but that doesn't mean we actually wanted to create any jobs by actually developing them.  Better we dealt with it like we dealt with the Sea King helicopters.  Trust us - if there is a way to waste time and money, the Liberals take a back seat to no-one.

Did we mention $3.4 billion wasted on gun registry?

So - give us the reins - we will develop jets and other technology, and then, once we've made that commitment, we'll just go buy the cheapest airplanes possible and ignore the investment and the jobs lost in abandoning the effort we started.

Ok.

Now with the "money to corporations" - borrowing a line of garbage from the Obama camp.

Suggesting that a corporate tax cut amounts to giving money to corporations.

Think about that for a moment... suppose I walk up to you and ask you for $10.00 and you give it to me.  A year later, I ask you for $9.00, and you give me that.

The Liberals call that "giving you $1.00".

Any honest person sees that as clearly giving you nothing - just asking for less.

And, while we're at it - why don't we ask out of work Canadians, "Would you like a job, or would you like higher corporate taxes" - because I will guarantee you that one thing higher taxes will NOT do, is create jobs.  It will do the opposite.

I'm thinking Canadians are smart enough to understand that corporate belt-tightening has resulted in fewer jobs - and that as the economy picks up, so too will jobs.

I mean - it wasn't that long ago that unemployment in Alberta was virtually non-existent - and people at Tim Horton's were making more money that anywhere else in Canada..   but I'm sure that was my imagination.  I'm sure that high corporate profits had nothing to do with creating jobs.

But go ahead and try the Liberal plan if you like - higher taxes - and see how quickly we create new jobs.

No longer content with "Politics as Usual" - Lessons from the Bastarache Inquiry

Is this where Politics should be going..?

Some clarification on why I chose to leave the PC Party of Alberta.

This past month, I chose to end my association with the PC Party of Alberta.  At that time, it was not my intention to air my reasons for doing so, both in deference to many members of the party, including our Premier, whom I respected and admired for their commitment to the Province.

However, I have now been advised that reasons have been circulated regarding my departure which are untrue and suggest that I had sought a political appointment and when I did not receive same, I left in response to that.

This is completely untrue.

Several years ago, I applied to be a Provincial Court Judge, and was not selected - during that period, two Judges were appointed whom I considered eminently qualified and, since, have shown themselves to be excellent Judges. 

Subsequent to that, I did not re-attend for further interviews and during more recent appointments I was not being considered for any judicial appointment.

Now.

A judicial appointment was made.  Obviously, I was not disappointed about not being appointed myself having not sought to obtain that appointment.

My concern related to the Judicial Appointment process more generally, and the general process of making decisions impacting the citizens of the Province of Alberta.

Rather than get into details and make matters more personal - I would recommend that readers consider the recent findings of the Bastarache Commission in Quebec.

As reported in CBC News today, Justice Bastarache, having reviewed allegations of political interference regarding appointment of Quebec Judges, determined that there was no evidenced to sustain an allegation of influence peddling.  However, while Jean Charest has tried to trumpet the finding as complete exoneration of his government - as reported:

Bastarache's nearly 300-page report also harshly criticizes the process of appointing Quebec judges, saying there are no standards governing selection committees, and that each justice minister has had to find his or her own way because of the legislative vacuum.

It says the rules are not clear, and the process lends itself to possible political intervention.

Bastarache said it gives the public the wrong impression.

"When almost half of the population believes that political ties are considered in the appointment of judges, there is a problem," said Bastarache.

Let me give you some inside information.  Bastarache is exactly right - and his commentary would be a very apt description of the problem in Alberta - and I'm sure throughout Canada.

This is how politics works.

To get elected, you need money.

To get money, you solicit support.

Now - very few people I'm sure, are so brash as to pay politicians money in consideration for a specific political decision - that would be bribing an official.  People go to jail for that sort of thing.

But - and here's the thing of it - it takes millions of dollars and tens of thousands of man hours to run an election.  And, as the saying goes, "there is no free lunch", so, the commitment to provide money and effort for political officials comes with very thin, un-defined strings. 

It brings to mind the first Godfather movie - if you recall Marlon Brando as the Godfather - Vito Corleone, being asked for a favor by the local funeral parlor owner, Bonsera:

Vito Corleone: Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day – accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.

People give money to politicians, they volunteer to help raise funds, to help knock on doors, do provide all sorts of assistance - and for many,many of these people, they implicitly look into the eyes of the politician, and they say, "Someday, I will call up you to do a service for me.."

Now, the politician may say "no", and no one is going to get their knees capped or anything - but the crack cocaine of so many politicians is power and recognition as being an "elected official" - and favors are owed, my friends, favors are owed as a result of helping politicians get elected and stay elected.

And that's wrong.

And the fact that it's happening from Quebec to Alberta doesn't make it acceptable.

And when I recently saw a glaring example of pure political payback, without regard to the trust with which decision power is held on behalf of the citizens of my Province - I could no longer hold my nose and say, "that's the way it is."

So I left.

And I will never be a Judge, and will never receive a Queen's Counsel designation - and I will wear that as a badge of honor - that my integrity was not for sale.  My involvement in politics was, and has always been in a somewhat altruistic effort perhaps to help make my community a little bit better than when I got here.

Am I tilting at windmills?  Maybe. 

But as Edmund Burke stated, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

So.

I guess I'll do something.

R.C.M.P Probe into Mayerthorpe Shootings: "Gun Registry Completely Useless"

James Roszko didn't register his guns?!?

Well.

They didn't exactly say that...  but they might as well have.

According to National Post, reporting on the inquiry:

Of the eight guns killer James Roszko had around him at the time of his death, one was smuggled across the border, several had been stolen and none was legally registered, an officer who specializes in tracing firearms told an inquiry into the deaths of four RCMP officers.

As also reported:

Sgt. Baumgartner testified there is no indication Roszko ever had a firearms licence or acquisition certificate.

At the time of the shootings, he was also barred from having any firearms or prohibited weapons because of a previous criminal conviction.

To summarize the result of the evidence:

The $3.4 billion dollars spent by the past Liberal government on the gun registry has been shown to be completely useless in making Canadians safer.  Clearly, people who intend to use guns to kill other people aren't all that concerned about the minor jeopardy of being charged with illegally possessing a firearm that was not registered.

Somehow, it is just dawning on us now that psychos like James Roszko, who want to use their guns to shoot police officers will probably not be too concerned with registering their firearms.

At the same time, other psychos like Kimveer Gill, may register their firearms, but when they decide to wander over to Dawson College and shoot people, the registry will do nothing to save their lives either.

Five Years of Stephen Harper.. A Legitimate Political Tough Guy

Overheard in Parliament:

Harper: Five

Ignatieff: Five?  Five what..?

Harper: Five years.  That's the number I figured when I was elected.  Five years as Prime Minister and you could consider yourself a political tough guy.   You need them for experience.  To develop leather skin. So I got started. Of course along the way you stop thinking about being tough and all that. It stops being the point. You get past the silliness of it all.  But then, after, you realize that's what you are. 

Congratulations Mr. Harper on five years of government - not always right, not always pretty - but for the most part, you've kept the ship on course, and sometimes, that's all we could ask for.


He has now passed Lester B. Pearson and in just over two months will break the top 10 for the longest serving Prime Ministers in Canadian History.
 
That says something about Stephen Harper.
 
And, perhaps, it also says something about Michael Ignatieff.

Hollywood.. We Can Dish It, But We Can't Take It

 

Well.

The Golden Globe organizers were not amused, apparently.

It seems that Ricky Gervaise's hilarious hosting of the awards, poking well-deserved fun at the court jesters of our day, was not funny to everyone.  The President of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, who hosts the awards, said:

"He definitely crossed the line. And some of the things were totally unacceptable.


"Any of the references to individuals is certainly not something the Hollywood Foreign Press condones."

The same people who give standing ovations to Michael Moore, the same people who lionize Jon Stewart and Bill Maher for their never-ending attacks on any person with an even remotely conservative nature - can't take a joke when it's aimed at them.

Please.

God forbid we take a shot at Charlie Sheen or Robert Downey, Jr.

Have you seen Two and a Half Men?
Have you seen Ironman?

They have profited grossly from their own failings as functional human beings..  and yet, apparently, when someone else makes fun, that "crosses the line".

Sorry.

We forget how serious and above reproach you Hollywood types are compared to the rest of us...

Nick Nolte

Hugh Grant

Charlie Sheen

Paul Reubens (Pee Wee Herman)

Robert Downey, Jr.

Mel Gibson

Paris Hilton

Lindsay Lohan

Tim Allen

Michael Jackson

O.J. Simpson

The Alberta PC Behemoth.. is the day of the Dinosaur Past?

"I think we'll put power lines where ever we damn well please.."

Well.

Curious.

Daniel Smith seeks to table new legislation through the Wild Rose Alliance seeking to establish respect for property owner rights in Alberta, giving property owners protection against the interests of big business and big government.

Suddenly, seeking to get out in front of the storm, Premier Stelmach announces, hours before her announcement, that the PC Party will be "reviewing" the current legislative framework regarding its own legislation which is less than two years old - Bills 36, the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, and Bill 19, the Land Assembly Project Act.

In other words, the PC Party of Alberta is scared.

What other explanation is there?

If the legislation was such a good idea in the first place, what need is there to "review" it less than two years' later?

The PC Party holds a stranglehold majority in the Legislature and has no need of other party support to shoot down Wild Rose effort to strengthen property rights in Alberta - but yet, they offer to "review" their new legislation clearly in response to the Wild Rose announcement.

The Wild Rose Alliance of Alberta is striking a chord with citizens who have grown somewhat weary of a government that appears to be more concerned with keeping power than doing what's right, and while I respect the sincerity of our Premier, there is no question that real change will not come from his party - there are simply too many corporate interests owed for their support to allow the PC Party to pass legislation that benefits the little guy.

It won't happen.

However - while the behemoth PC Party of Alberta may be powerful and scary today - the response of the party shows quite clearly the fear in their heart - and while the "little guys" may appear to be scurrying under the PC Party's heavy feet - like another behemoth, Godzilla, the old monster known as the PC Party of Alberta may have it's days numbered.

Thoughts on the Tucson Shooting

"Hate Speech?"

Well.

As I write this I'm sitting about 118 miles north of Tucson, in Phoenix, Arizona. According to recent reports, I am in the hotbed of racism in the U.S., where political vitriol, particularly from the right, is the literal smoking gun behind the Tucson shooting.

According to Pima County Sheriff, I sit in the "Mecca of hatred and bigotry."

Oddly enough, I, a caucasion, sat down next to a complete stranger yesterday who happened to be hispanic, and we appeared to be able to have a civil, pleasant conversation with neither of us accusing the other of somehow being "the enemy".

But that isn't news, now is it?

No - what CNN, MSNBC, and, yes, FOX NEWS, salivate over is the senseless and the profane.  While they stand there wagging their fingers, they are only too happy to put Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh on the air. 

For money. 

So - if hyperbole and vitriol is the cause of this shooting - the MSM is a least guilty of aiding and abbeting the murders, no?

Now - following the shooting, the press has also gone to great lengths to point out the use of "targets" by tea party advocates - specifically, Sarah Palin - to illustrate districts being strongly challenged by the right.  It takes very little imagination to see what their suggestion is.. namely, that "conservatives" committed the shooting - just as if Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck were holding the gun.

Let's step back just a minute, and make a few points:

a) The more reports come out, the more it appears that the alleged killer in Tucson was mentally unbalanced and had no discernable political affiliation - being anti-government in general, anti-religion, and suffering ongoing mental problems, including being removed from Pima College and rejected for military enlistment;

b) It is probably a valid criticism of the Amercian government response to the 9-11 tragedy, that it either took advantage of, or, at a minimum, overreacted to the tragedy, curtailing personal liberties of it's own citizens and pushing the U.S. into a war in Iraq that was, in hind-sight, an I'll-advised knee-jerk to the tragedy. Lest we forget Michael Ignatieff's warm endorsement of the Bush war effort. 

I would endorse that criticism that comes, primarily, from liberals and democrats, and suggest in response to this tragedy, "Would you like to make the same mistake twice?";

c) If we wish to reduce polarization and vitriol, do we target those we oppose as the "bad guys", and then gaze in wonder as polarization continues to increase? Though the media currently is making much of the Tea Party "targets", including shooting victim Congresswoman Gifford, they seem to have forgotten the hyperbolic references recently from Democrats:

"They Bring a Knife?We Bring a gun!
"Get in Their Faces!"
"I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!"
"Hit Back Twice As Hard"
"We talk to these folks? so I know whose ass to kick."
Republican victory would mean "hand to hand combat"
"It's time to Fight for it."
"Punish your enemies."
"I'm itching for a fight."

The speaker? Barack Obama.

The point, perhaps, is that the same sort of dehumanization of others "not like us" has allowed for the horror of most hate-based crime, incluing the attrocities of the Nazi's.  Seeing others as "less than human" is the starting point for excusing abuse and eventually, murder and genocide.
Maybe rather than trying to make political points and trying to out-do our "enemies", it is time to seek out our commonality.  That we want to live in a free and democratic society where disagreements are dealt with by debate, not by guns and knives.

Maybe it's time to stop using terms like "leftards" and "tea baggers", and to exchange ideas with respect, even when we strongly disagree.

Freedom for all of us is threatened whenever someone seeks to use violence to accomplish their ends, whether we agree with their cause or not - and perhaps the starting point, for a change, is looking into our own backyard to ask ourselves if we have sought to de-personalize those with whom we disagree.

Just a thought.

Of course, by not whipping up the conservative base and by suggesting moderation in response to this tragedy, I doubt I'll have many engaged bloggers.

But that's ok.

It's for a good cause.

Canucks Upon the Ice

Canucks Upon the Ice *

The outlook it looked brilliant
for the red and white that day;

The score stood three to none,
with but one last frame to play

But when Panarin scored a quick one,
and Kitsyn did the same

A sickly silence fell upon the crowd
assembled at the game.

Suddenly those who thought to leave,
were glued into their chairs

With the hope the boys could hold the fort,
to lose was more than they could bear.

Then Tarasenko knotted up the score,
and like a sinking ship

We felt the gold just slip away,
slowly pulled out from our grip.

But our backs had been against that wall

So many times before,

That we felt the night could still be ours

Our team was bound to score

But alas the Russians scored again,
with Panarin putting them ahead

The score was now 4 goals to 3,
were all our hopes now dead?

But our boys they kept on working,
and were buzzing round the net

With some close calls ‘round the Russian goal

We knew they'd come back yet.

From 30 million throats and more
there rose a lusty yell;

It rumbled in Vancouver and in Halifax as well;

It knocked upon the mountain
and recoiled upon the flat,

For Canada, we knew in our hearts,
would manage to come back

Their skates did flash, their shots did boom,
their minds set to the task

There was pride in our coach’s bearing
as the last two minutes passed

A hundred twenty seconds, was certainly enough

For the red and white to tie it up,
we knew they had the stuff

With the eyes of Canada upon them,
the team set their minds to score.

No beers were raised in all the land
as we cheered them on for more.

Our history is full of tales,
of stunning battles back

Like the 2010 Olympics
when Sidney rose to meet the task

We knew that history would yet repeat,
that our boys would pay the price

To lose was just beyond belief,
with Canucks upon the ice.

Oh, somewhere in this world we know
the sun is shining bright;

Children laughing, playing
Somewhere hearts are light

And somewhere men are laughing,
and somewhere women shout;

But there is no joy in Canada
— the boys in red and white struck out.

(* With appreciation to Ernest Thayer's
"Casey at the Bat")

Creating Shared Value - Continuing the Conversation

No Burgers for Ben

Well.

Only three comments on my post yesterday discussing the need to shift the corporate paradigm from short-term self interest, to long-term self-interest which requires creation of shared value for the corporation and the community - based upon an article in the Harvard Business Review this month - "The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value."

Some interesting comments that I would like to continue.

Specifically, from Ben:

The truth is any given item/service has so much value -X- , if the top fat cats skim 83% (as taken from the estimates of total US wealth held by the top 10 percentile of wealthiest Americans) that leaves 17% to be divided amongst the other 90% of us.


At a bbq for 10 people with 10 hamburgers would you allow 1 guy to eat 8.3 burgers while the other 9 of you shared 1.7 burgers?

A couple thoughts about this -

First point.  Your numbers are just wrong, Ben.

According to "Wealth Inequality in the United States" by Keister, the 83.9% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the population - not 10%.

Beyond that, we don't live in the United States and most people in the world don't.

And most people are beginning to see that the U.S. example is perhaps becoming a failing example to emulate.

The U.S. has higher corporate and personal tax than Canada - and yet, has significantly fewer social benefits arising from that tax paid.. in fact, the U.S. has the highest effective corporate tax rates in the OECD - witness the following:

Australia 30.00%
Austria 25.00%
Belgium 33.99%
Canada 29.52%
Chilel 17.00%
Czech Republic 19.00%
Denmark 25.00%
Finland 26.00%
France 34.43%
Germany 30.18%
Greece 24.00%
Hungary 19.00%
Iceland 15.00%
Ireland 12.50%
Italy 27.50%
Japan 39.54%
Korea 24.20%
Luxembourg 28.59%
Mexico 30.00%
Netherlands 25.50%
New Zealand 30.00%
Norway 28.00%
Poland 19.00%
Portugal 26.50%
Slovak Republic 19.00%
Spain 30.00%
Sweden 26.30%
Switzerland 21.17%
Turkey 20.00%
United Kingdom 28.00%
United States 39.21%

Why is that?

Well.

Start with massive spending on Military and Justice.

Start with a realization - which is my point - that the relative sharing of wealth in the U.S. is significantly different, than, for example, Canada.

Certainly there is still an unequal distribution of wealth in Canada - however, in a free system that is going to happen.  But, in Canada, the top 10% only hold about 58% of the wealth and, according to a federal study, median wealth more than doubled between 1970 and 2005, having grown by about 20% to 25% since 1984.  The middle class in Canada has grown in numbers and in relative wealth.

That means more homes being built and sold, more cars are sold, and more Ipads are being purchased.

That means more business income.

Now.

Think about this.

Imagine if, in the U.S., instead of spending 25% of their budget on security, they devoted 10 to 15%, allowing them to drop their tax rates in line with other OECD countries.

And while many in the U.S. are touting protectionism as the "answer" to their problems - imagine that, oh, about a 100 million more people in the world have the affluence to purchase an Ipad or other products manufactured by U.S. corporations.

And - as they move their plants to other countries, they create a tax based for those countries, and that allows for education in those countries, and that increases - according to all studies, potential for economic growth of the poor and lower classes far beyond "giving them fish".

Second point, Ben.

If I own the hamburger and the barbecue, and invite 8 other people over on a condition that they cook and clean up - and then I get 2 hamburgers to their one, would you complain Ben? Would that be "unfair"?

The answer, if you think so Ben..  next barbecue, you don't get invited.

Problem solved.

No burgers for Ben.

Shared Value - the "New" Corporate Paradigm.. something beyond pandering.

Look..  I'm an "Environmentalist"!

Most people know when they are being patronized.


Take most "green" television commercials, for example.  My current favorite is the Hyundai Sonata commercial where the camera pans out to show us a guy moving the backdrop behind the car on a bicycle, with the caption at the end of the commercial pointing out "This commercial was made with no carbon footprint."

Really?

Hyundai - you are selling automobiles.  People driving your cars clog highways, made of asphalt, made of (yes) oil.

To produce your cars, there are people mining metals and people drilling for oil to create the plastics that 50% of your cars are made of.  Then - those metals and petroleum products are transported from where the raw product is harvested to the plant where they are converted to usable products - all using tons and tons of carbon - and then, those are brought to your plants..  who, in fact, uses massive amounts of electricity to manufacture those Sonatas..  and where do they get their electricity in Alabama?

Yup.  Lots and lots of coal.  Carbon burning, climate heating, coal.

So.

Pardon me, Hyundai - I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

The answer?

It is going beyond patronizing the public.  It is going beyond using "green" initiatives as pandering public relations efforts. 

The answer for business, the answer for society.. and perhaps the answer for Conservative politics of the future is set out in a fascinating article in the Harvard Business Review - "The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value", by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer.

I would recommend anyone serious about politics read this article.  The fundamental theme is that business needs to expand it's view beyond the short-term, to see the long-term symbiotic relationship between business success and broad societal interests.

Not social conscience as mere public relations, but social conscience as the foundation of long term business success.

And here, in Canada, we are poised to perhaps lead the world.. as our political sensibilities have always been more nuanced and less polarized than much of the world around us, making us prime candidates to press for positive business and social change.

To illustrate the distinction between the Hyundai approach and the Harvard approach, Porter and Kramer point to the example of "fair trade" not by redistribution of wealth, but by expanding value:

Shared value, then, is not about personal values. Nor is it about “sharing” the value already created by firms—a redistribution approach. Instead, it is about expanding the total pool of economic and social value. A good example of this difference in perspective is the fair trade movement in purchasing. Fair trade aims to increase the proportion of revenue that goes to poor farmers by paying them higher prices for the same crops. Though this may be a noble sentiment, fair trade is mostly about redistribution rather than expanding the overall amount of value created. A shared value perspective, instead, focuses on improving growing techniques and strengthening the local cluster of supporting suppliers and other institutions in order to increase farmers’ efficiency, yields, product quality, and sustainability. This leads to a bigger pie of revenue and profits that benefits both farmers and the companies that buy from them. Early studies of cocoa farmers in the Côte d’Ivoire, for instance, suggest that while fair trade can increase farmers’ incomes by 10% to 20%, shared value investments can raise their incomes by more than 300%. Initial investment and time may be required to implement new procurement practices and develop the supporting cluster, but the return will be greater economic value and broader strategic benefits for all participants.

The answer, they posit, is not through charity or redistribution of wealth - and is certainly not in tired, dated corporate philosophy of the most short term gain regardless of long-term viability - it is by understanding that there IS a win/win potential for business and the broader society.

New idea?

Maybe not so much.  I seem to recall hearing of the benefit of learning to fish as opposed to having a fish given to me.

THAT is Conservative sensibility.  THAT is called "shared value".



Here I go.. blaming the so-called "Victim". Jenn Sterger - spare me the indignation.

Well.

The NFL season has drawn to a close, and so, apparently, has Brett Favre's career.

Or so he says for now.

And, as well, the NFL has announced their "penalty" for Favre's inappropriate conduct, a $50,000.00 fine, not for his lewd communication with New York Jet employee Jenn Sterger, but for not being "cooperative" with the investigation.

And Jenn Sterger isn't happy.

According to her statement, via her lawyer:

"Today’s decision is an affront to all females and shows once again that, despite tough talk, the NFL remains the good old boys’ league."

Really?

Now.. here's the thing..

Is Brett Favre a scumbag?  Probably.  No doubt his massive ego suggested to him than any woman would be flattered to be given the "chosen one's" attention - and so off goes the pathetic messages to Sterger.

But here's my point.

If we really want to talk about an affront to females, let's talk about Jenn Sterger for a moment, shall we?

I have a daughter.

And she struggles with her self-image - like any young woman.  And I would hope that as she moves into adulthood, her value as a human being will be about who she is, not what she looks like.

So.

Let's picture a typical young girl, with her whole future ahead of them for a moment.

She's someone's daughter too.  And she is looking forward to a career based upon her intelligence and her strength of character.

And, sadly, she battles with lingering sexism in society, with the perception that as smart as she might be, and as hard as she might work when she grows up, it may not be enough.

You see, if she wants to be a sports reporter, if she wants a job, say, with an NFL program, well, she may not get that job if she doesn't present herself like this:

So.

Jenn.

As you cry about just how sexist and unfair the NFL is, well, uh.. spare me the tears.

And consider who walks hand-in-hand with Brett Favre as an "affront to all females".