Oscars. Nice and Safe. Just like our Brave New World.

"I see dull people."

Weren't the Academy Awards swell last night?

Hollywood's version of handing out participation ribbons dragged on for several hours of, well, tedium.

They made sure they covered both genders in handing over the hosting reins to James Franco and Anne Hathaway, who were, well, safe - if not interminably boring. 

Not taking any chances on some cheeky comic like Ricky Gervais.

Then they brought out the plastic-faced senior citizen, Kirk Douglas, and made a big show of how broad minded they were when Kirk Douglas made a valiant effort, but failed, in speaking intelligibly through the results of his stroke and age..  let's be honest, he looked hideous and no one understood about half of what he was saying.

And in response Anne Hathaway fanned herself, implying that she was all a-twitter over Kirk's overtures towards her.

Really, Anne?

Isn't his son, Michael Douglas, being with Catherine Zeta-Jones creepy enough?

The only scandalous moment of the whole evening was when Melissa Leo won for best supporting actress, during a bit of a rambling acceptance speech, blurted out, "When I watched Kate two years ago, it looked so fucking easy."

Oooh.

So edgy.

This is it, readers.  The "Brave New World", where everything is, well..  safe.  And nice.  And predictable.

Did anyone for a moment consider that Colin Firth wasn't going to win for his part in the "Stuttering King?"

Did anyone for a moment imagine that Natalie Portman wasn't going to win for her part in the "Psycho Ballet Dancer"?

Ho.

Hum.

And such is the stuff of that great liberal messenger to the world, Hollywood.  If you want to know what society will be like if we give in whole-heartedly to small "l" liberal sensibilities.. just watch a re-broadcast of last night's Academy Awards.

Me?  I'll be watching Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan . 

Hollywood as it "really" is, not as it pretends to be.

**P.S.  A big screw-you to the Academy for ignoring Canadian Corey Haim in the "In Memoriam" section of the evening, while assuring that they recognized no-body-knows-them people like Ronni Chasen...  a publicist.

They love it when actors pretend to be drug-abusing, self-destructive rebels..  but they can't deal with it when it happens in real life.

Charlie Sheen on Two-and-a-Half Men - love it.
Charlie Sheen on crack with porn stars on his arms.. unacceptable.

The So-Called "Alberta Advantage" - Spending More and Getting Less

Curious place, Alberta.

The last bastion of small "c" conservatism some say.

Less government, more business has been the impression the Province has traditionally given the outside world.

But taking a good look at the Province of late, in fact, the reality is completely different.

If your view of "conservatism" means smaller government, you would be grossly dissappointed with where we have gone in this Province. 

We have more provincial employees in Alberta than any of the other Western Provinces, per the University of Alberta School of Business:

We have more provincial employes per citizen in Alberta than any of the other Western Provinces, again, per the University of Alberta School of Business:

This is fact.  This is not political hyperbole.  While we crow about being "conservative" and being about "less government", in fact, we have more government than any other Western Province in Canada.

Now -  many will say, "Well, yes, but we make more money than the other provinces, so we SHOULD spend more on providing services to our citizens."

And I might agree with that statement if the citizens of the Province were better off as a result.  But we aren't.
We are not getting the "bang for our buck" from our civil service.

Let's look at education for a moment, shall we?

Firstly, let us see how much we pay our teachers compared to other Provinces.

Alberta education likes to brag about how we have the highest paid teachers in Canada:

Yup.  Clearly, we're spending lots of money on education.  Most in Canada, pretty much.

How is our education system doing? What are graduation rates like in Alberta compared to other Provinces. (Per StatsCan report on Provincial Drop-out Rates):

Aren't we proud?  The highest paid teachers and the second highest drop-out rates in Canada. And we're getting worse.  In the early 90's, we had six other Provinces with higher drop-out rates than in Alberta.. now there is only one - Manitoba.

Ok..  so let's stop picking on education, and have a look at health care, shall we - according to the Fraser Institute Report on "Waiting Your Turn", Alberta wait times from seeing a GP to obtaining treatment were four weeks longer than the national average - 22.1 weeks, compared to the national average of 18.2.

And, as with education, with respect to our expenditure on health care, on a per capita basis - we have (along with Manitoba) the highest per capita expenditure on health care in Canada, according to the Canadian Institute on Health Care Information - with our Government spending approximately $6,266 per citizen.

British Columbia, by comparison, spends the second lowest per capita amount on health care, and yet, has average waiting times from GP to treatment of only 18.8 weeks - approximately the same as the national average.

Yesterday, I alluded to the notion that our Province is really a large corporation, with the citizens being the shareholders.

In any corporation I can imagine, if expenditures were consistently higher than industry average and results were consistently lower than industry average - the Board of Directors would be replaced.

Isn't it about time for a new Board?

Literal "Chicken TV" Comes to Toronto

Well.

It would sorta make sense that the same people who voted in Dalton McGuinty now have a channel devoted to nothing but rotating "rotisserie chickens".

No kidding.

It would be curious to analyze the political demographic of the target audience of this new channel.

Unfortunately, like its sponsor, Swiss Chalet, it offers a tempting appearance, but no real substance.

Coming soon, the Ignatieff Channel.

24/7, Michael looking "stately".

Spilled Coffee Means Fourth Consecutive Deficit Budget in Alberta

Welcome to that bastion of conservative fiscal responsibility, Alberta.

Where over the last four years, our government has shown that after Albertans sacrificed greatly to finally become the only Province in Canada without debt, we now have a Province that has spent much more than it is brought in for four consecutive budgets.

Four consecutive deficit budgets.

Budgets which have propped up a grossly bloated bureaucracy, of manager, upon manager, upon manager - who all seem to receive lovely golden parachutes when they exit the government employ after, typically, doing nothing to make things at all better (can you say Stephen Duckett getting $700,000.00?)

Where Conservatives discuss with fondness the idea of Gary Mar seeking the leadership - after giving his former executive assistant some $374,000.00 for untendered "consulting" contracts, with virtually no work product to show for it.

A projected $5 billion deficit is coming this year, and all indications are that the plan is to continue running deficits the following year.

There are approximately 3.7 million citizens in Alberta.

Consider, for the moment, that you and I - as citizens of this Province, are really the owners of a large business operation - shareholders if you will.

The announced budget deficit means that the Government will be taking $1,351.35out of the pockets of each and every one of us because they can't seem to now control spending.  For a family of five, that means as a stakeholder in this Province, you are going to lose $6,756.75 this year.

Why is this?

To explain best, I can only refer to a comment by a friend a few weeks ago.  He works for the government.  And he explained to me over lunch how a memo was being circulated to all employees because two women spilled coffee on themselves.

So.

Because of two people being too stupid to pour or carry coffee without spilling on themselves, someone has to sit down and write a memo and then send that to all other employees, who then need to take a few minutes out of their day and read it.  And really, memos are meant to be considered, and so no doubt, many of them then discussed that memo with other employees - all during working hours.

But it doesn't end there.

You see - an official incident report then needs to be completed by the government employee responsible for assuring work place safety.  And that report needs to be vetted by their superior, no doubt, who then in turn puts it in a file of similar "incidents" to be considered at a later meeting of supervisors.  And then after meeting on that point, minutes of the meeting will be circulated for consideration of all present - and ultimately, no doubt, someone will suggest that there be a committee formed to consider other ways of delivering coffee to employees.

And someone, no doubt, will also have to assure that if they are contracting out the delivery of coffee, they need to assure that the coffee they use is purchased using "fair trade" standards, and that the employees of the coffee supplier are properly represented by all genders, races, and sexual preferences.. "What, no transsexuals?  Sorry, we can't buy your coffee..".

Of course, if a decision is made to change the mode of delivery, to assure that they have employee input, they will organize a retreat, and spend a day or two beating ceremonial drums before engaging in a broad discussion to determine if the needs of the employees are being understood and respected.

And none of this, not one speck of this effort, concerns the actual delivery of service that the government is charged to provide on behalf of the citizens.

So. 

Then.

This is exactly how government works.. or doesn't.  And our Provincial government shows no interest in changing the paradigm of waste and useless bureaucratic inertia.

And so.

Spilled coffee gives us a $5 billion deficit.

And so on, and so on, and so on...

Police Use of Force.. Maybe Give Them a Little Break

Remember this?

Remember the hue and cry over this cop punching a woman trying to intervene when he was making an arrest.

THIS is why maybe we should re-think our outrage, from Sun News:

Two Calgary men have been charged in the vicious beating of a Lethbridge Regional Police constable Wednesday morning.


Const. Norman Smith, with nearly two years on the force and three prior to that with Edmonton police, suffered a broken nose, broken cheekbone and serious head injuries in the attack about 2 a.m.

Lethbridge police spokesman Staff Sgt. Zealand Leavitt said the officer saw two men walking on a south-side street when he approached them.

It's unclear why the men were being arrested, but Leavitt said the officer managed to handcuff one when the other one, who initially fled, returned and launched a vicious attack.

I work in downtown Lethbridge.  Day in and day out I see how our local police treats our less fortunate citizens with respect and consideration.  To read that probably within a stone's throw of my office this officer was beaten by some scumbag pieces of garbage makes me sick. 

Maybe it's time that Canadians got off of the "excessive use of force" bandwagon and really considered the reality of the potential violence that police officers face every day, and how easy it is for us to criticize them from behind the curtain of safety that they provide us.

Maybe THIS is why we should give our police the benefit of the doubt when they believe they need to use force in securing an arrest:

South Park Response to the Somali Pirate Issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUTHktI8kJA&feature=related

Just sayin'

Quebec - Canada's "Princess"

So.

Who is "the Princess" in Canadian federation.

The spoiled little brat who is completely self-obsessed, has no sense of personal responsibility, and who loves to look down their nose at everyone around them, but is real quick to put their hand-out for money from the same people they look down on.

Which Province is most likely to utter the words, "Uhm.. I think my financial situation is, like, really bad.. but I just kinda ignore it.."?

Two guesses and the first one doesn't count.

And this past week we see more of the same in la belle Province.

Once again, les Quebecois show themselves to be completely incapable of handling their own affairs, notwithstanding consistently getting the biggest helping of transfer funds of any Province in Canada.

Now they have pushed through "back to work" legislation for crown prosecutors, taking away their right to strike after offering them a salary increase which would still put them 40% behind most prosecutors in Canada.

While provincial prosecutors in Alberta and Ontario are earning up to  $198,000.00 per year, prosecutors in Quebec are paid a maximum of $102,700.00.

Why are they in this position?

Consider this graphic of Quebec's ratio of debt to GDP:

So.

While the Charest government trumpet the announcement that they are spending $400 million for a new ice arena for no one, in the fight against crime in Quebec, a Province described as the "the most corrupt Province in Canada" - home to Hells Angels biker wars, Mafia mob boss killings and lets not forget Adscam, their government says, "we are happy to have the poorest paid prosecutors in Canada.  And the most over-worked."

Better to spend money advancing their "cultural interests" - ie) building monuments to Quebec xenophobia. 

The answer?

Well, the Quebec prosecutors are suggesting we have the Federal Government pay for it.

How ironic is that?

The province which can't complain enough over Federal incursion into their "sovereignty" is now suggesting that the Federal Government take over provincial prosecutions.

Quebec truly is Canada's princess.

And maybe, just maybe, Stephen Harper should hire Gail Vaz-Oxlade to handle the disbursal of transfer funds, so that she can have a candid talk with Quebec, and tell them, "I'M telling YOU how it's going to be.  Either you do it my way or you don't get the money."

Of course, even hard-nosed Gail Vaz-Oxlade probably would eventually tire of trying to guide them to fiscal sanity.. as she says of her "Princess" projects:

“They just drained the life out of me, because they were so demanding, so petulant, so unwilling to move forward.”

Gail.. the rest of us in Canada feel you, we really do.

Stephen Harper.. the World's Most "Livable" Leader?

Calgary -  the 5th "Most Livable City" in the World.  Nice.

Well.

Consider for a moment.

In 2006, Stephen Harper became the leader of this wonderful country, taking over the reins from a Liberal government, who had managed during a decade of never-before-seen prosperity, to take their party from being described as Canada's "Natural Governing Party", to a disgrace.

Then, almost immediately upon taking possession of the keys to 24 Sussex Drive, the world plunged into the worst economic recession since the 1930's, beginning in 2007 and continuing until the present day.  And this was laid at the feet of our new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

There is a saying that goes, "Adversity introduces a man to himself."

I have given the government a hard ride this past week over the stupidity in the Bev Oda situation - and I think that criticism is well deserved.

But today, we awake to news that in a broad internationally respected survey of "livability" in the world, three of the top ten "livable" cities in the world are in Canada.  According to the 2011 report of The Economist Intelligence Unit, the top 10 most livable cities in the world are:

1. Vancouver
2. Melbourne, Australia
3. Vienna, Austria
4. Toronto
5. Calgary
6. Finland, Helsinki
7. Sydney, Australia
8. Perth, Australia
9. Adelaide, Australia
10. Auckland, New Zealand

So.

Three of the top 10 cities in the world are right here in the great white north.

How were we doing back in 2006?

Vancouver was 3rd.  No other Canadian cities were in the top 10.

Which isn't to say that things were bad, internationally speaking, in Canada back in 2006.  Toronto was 15.  Ottawa was 18.

But the point is that in the midst of the most trying economic crisis since the great depression, the cream rose to the top.

Adversity introduced our Prime Minister to our citizens.

And, maybe as important, it introduced our citizens to themselves.  Because if in Canada we reacted like petulant, spoiled children who refused to accept that playtime was over, no doubt we would have booted out Stephen Harper some time ago.

But we didn't.

So.

Today take some pride in knowing that in staying the course, in having some patience with a government who didn't offer us a quick fix, our country is doing well, and is, in many respects, the envy of the world.

Well done Stephen Harper.

Well done Canada.

Friday Grab Bag.. Harper's Vigilantes and my Quest for Fire (Arms)

Well.

While the Liberals continue to hammer on poor Bev Oda (who has it coming), Stephen Harper is blissfully ignoring their consternation, and, actually doing something constructive.

Which is just as well.

He's tabling legislation to clarify the entitlement of Canadians to defend themselves and their property.

Which is pretty ironic, actually, considering my conversation yesterday with an official with the Firearms Program.

For those of you who follow this little blog, you may be aware that while I do not hunt, have never hunted, and have never before considered the need or desire to own a firearm, upon seeing the shameful way in which the Liberals and NDP lied and misrepresented the circumstances relating to incidences at L'ecole Polytechnique and Dawson College to press for support of the Gun Registry - I decided I should obtain my PAL and eventually acquire a handgun for no other reason but that the Liberals and NDP didn't want me to have one.

Err..  I mean, to allow me to partake of the sport of target shooting at a local gun range and perhaps collect handguns.

So.

Anyway, off I go in October and take two courses to train me to obtain my PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) for Restricted and Non-restricted firearms.

I then take the exams, and, having passed both of them, happily send off my application (requiring approval of my spouse, potential approval of any girlfriend I've had in the past while, references, etc., etc..) to obtain my PAL on November 15, 2010.

The website says to expect a 45 day turnaround, so, I'm shopping around for pistols in the meanwhile, thinking that I'm probably looking at starting my new sport sometime early in the new year.

Oddly enough, as we speak, I haven't received it.

So, last week, I call and leave a message with the Chief Firearms Officer, and yesterday, I get a call back from a very pleasant woman who wanted to ask me a few more questions (I already went through numerous questions about two months ago, asking about whether I've ever been violent.. "I played hockey for 30 years.. does that count?")

Anyway.

Apparently, I was red listed.

Why?

Because when they asked me why I wanted  my PAL, I told them, "For target shooting.. and maybe secondarily for personal protection."

Well.

That made them upset.

Because you are not allowed, apparently, to have a firearm in your home, even properly stored and secured, for personal protection.

You can have guns for sport.  You can "collect" them.. but not for personal protection.

Fortunate for me, personal protection was more of an after-thought than my primary purpose, otherwise, I'd be gunless for ever.  I'm pleased to no report that my license has finally been approved and is, apparently, in the mail.

So.

Sometime over the next week or two, I'm going to be shopping.  I had considered a 9mm PX4 Beretta - but some other people I've spoken to in my new sport have suggested that I'd be much better off with a 9mm Glock or SIG.

While I'm still pissed and the PMO and how they have handled Bev Oda (how long does it take to fire someone?) I'm pleased that the party I support understands the rights of Canadians not to just sit back and be abused by punks and thugs.

Meanwhile.. any advice would be greatly appreciated regarding which acquisition would be my better choice, and why.  Or, if you prefer, just take my little survey above.

1.  PX4 Beretta Storm - 9mm

2.  SIG Saurer P226 - 9mm

3.  Glock 19 - 9mm

PC Alberta - Putting a New Saddle on an Old Horse?

All she needs is a new saddle.

Ok.

So Allison Redford has officially entered the race to replace.

And the buzz you are sure to hear is that the PC party is in the process of "revitalizing" or "reinventing" or some such thing, suggesting that they are the process of somehow becoming something other than what they are.

A tired horse that's been ridden too far, for too long.

And it's pretty obvious that if you put a new saddle on a old horse, it still won't run, will it?

Of course, not everyone is looking to put a new saddle on that old nag.

Buzz in the street is that Gary Mar will come back to "save" the party.

Look.

I like Gary Mar, he's  a bright guy whose been hanging out in Washington, D.C. for a while and the PC Party will tell you that he's become well connected to our biggest trading partner, and is the perfect fit for the leader of this Province.

Problem is, what they won't remind you is why he's been gone.  Why he's gone all "Michael Ignatieff" on the Province since 2007.

Let me take you back to a little conversation in the Legislature May 12, 2004 (page 1391):

Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. According to public accounts tabled yesterday, the Department of Health and Wellness awarded almost $ 120,000 in contracts to Charlebois Consulting, a company 100 per cent owned by the minister of health's former executive assistant Kelley Charlebois. In fact, in the two years since Kelley Charlebois left his position with the minister, the Minister of Health and Wellness has awarded a total of over $250,000 in contracts. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. How does the minister explain giving over a quarter of a million dollars in government contracts to a PR firm owned by his former executive assistant?

Mr. Mar: Let me say first of all that that would include the expenses that were incurred in the conduct of this business, but most of all, Mr. Speaker, we get very, very good value and excellent advice from Mr. Charlebois.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us what reports Charlebois Consulting has completed for Health and Wellness, and would he table them, please?

Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, there are no reports as such.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us whether Charlebois Consulting won these contracts through a competitive process?

Mr. Mar: No, Mr. Speaker.

Really?  $250,000.00 to your buddy and no report or work product provided?

What..?  It wasn't $250,000.00?

Sorry.

It was $374,000.00, for "Secret Advice".

They just don't get it.  The ability to appoint people to boards and such, the ability to hire consultants and other services is a right that is held in trust for the citizens of this Province.  It is no less than the Government holding onto your wallet and being obligated to use your money at your direction and in your best interests.

And they're getting ready to invite Gary Mar back into the fold with open arms.

They just don't get it.

This old horse needs to be put down.

Conservatives.. time to own up to the CIDA debacle

Uhm..  sorry?

Well.

First the good news.

The Conservative Party has opened a commanding lead in the polls over the Liberals according to two separate polls this week:

EKOS - showing the Conservatives 12.5 points ahead of the Liberals, Ipsos Reid - showing Conservatives 14 points ahead of the Liberals, and Taken as an average, that suggests about a 12.7% lead - the highest numbers since the last election.

Harris Decima - showing Conservatives 10 points ahead of the Liberals.

More telling - their lead has increased in Ontario, and now, they show a clear lead in Newfoundland, after getting shout out in the last federal election there, thanks to Danny Williams, they now are leading the Liberals on the Rock, by 11.1%. 

Life is good for Stephen Harper.

Except for this stupid, stupid Bev Oda situation.

Yesterday, we watched Stephen Harper march to her defence.  I would call that a tactical error that could have epic consequences if he's not careful.

Bev Oda, with the aid of Jason Kenney, has pretty clearly mislead Parliament.  Maybe it's time to just say, "I messed up, I made a decision based upon the political agenda of KAIROS and should have just admitted it."

Try to set aside partisan blinders for a just a moment if you will, and follow the sad, stupid story.

1. The Kenney Blunder:

In December 2009, Jason Kenney tells an Israeli audience that KAIROS lost funding because of its antagonistic attitude towards Israel, stating:

We have articulated and implemented a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. What does this mean? It means that we eliminated the government funding relationship with organizations like for example, the Canadian Arab Federation, whose leadership apologized for terrorism or extremism, or who promote hatred, in particular anti-Semitism.


We have ended government contact with like-minded organizations like the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose President notoriously said that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for assassination. We have defunded organizations, most recently like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott. And we’re receiving a lot of criticism for these decisions. I can’t recall how many times I’ve been sued for some of the decisions that we have taken, but we believe that we’ve done these things for the right reasons and we stand by these decisions.

Now.

Read that and tell me - honestly - is there any doubt that Jason Kenney proudly told an Israeli audience that KAIROS was defunded because of their "leadership roll in the boycott" of Israel?

Clearly that exactly what he said, and I'm sure, exactly what happened.

And you know what?  I'm good with that.  NGO's are funded, in part, because they are NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS - that they are not political organizations, they are aid organizations - and when they decide to enter the political process, I think the government should pull funding.

But that's really not the issue, is it.

Because in the face of the complaint that the funding was pulled for political reasons, Kenney did a big 180 degree turn.

Nope.

That's not what I said at all.

And he throws the decision at Bev Oda.


2.  The Kenney Blame-Shift

In response to complaints over Kenney's comments, Kenney issues another statement, saying, effectively "I didn't say what you said I said, and if I did, you misunderstood what I meant."

While I disagree with the nature of KAIROS's militant stance toward the Jewish homeland, that is not the reason their request for taxpayer funding was denied. International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda – not me – is responsible for the Canada International Development Agency. And she has been clear that a cost-sharing program with KAIROS was not approved because it did not meet CIDA's current priorities, such as increased food aid.

Oh. Ok.  So when you said that the government was helping Israelis by pulling funding for unfriendly groups like KAIROS, you were just lying to your Jewish audience, taking advantage of an otherwise routine bureaucratic decision that could be used to "look like" it was in response to anti-Israeli actions.

Well, that's all better, isn't it.

Except then the spotlight shifts to Bev Oda.


3.  The Oda Blunder

Bev Oda, now being called on the table and asked to effectively square Jason Kenney's inconsistent statements, it being suggested that the PMO did in fact withdraw funding for political reasons, decides to step into the pile of crap herself:

On Oct. 28, she stood in the House of Commons and said: "All projects by CIDA are assessed against our effectiveness standard. After due diligence, it was determined that KAIROS did not meet government standards."

Jim Abbott, her parliamentary secretary, twice said in the House twice that CIDA wanted the cut.

Bev Oda did not suggest anything different.

So then.

It was just a bureaucratic decision based upon funding priorities.  Didn't meet the CIDA standards.

End of story, no?

Nope.


4.  The Sh*t Hits the Fan

All was well. 

Until the document turning down the funding was disclosed and showed what appeared to be an approved application for $7.1 million in funding, signed by two CIDA officials and Bev Oda, with the exception of a big "NOT" handwritten in front of the word "approved".

Well, that seemed odd.

So someone asked Ms. Oda about it, clearly suggesting that perhaps Jason Kenney was right the first time, and that government had over-ruled the funding approval on political grounds.

Bev Oda's response was equivocal in responding to the Foreign Affairs Committee questions December 9, 2010.

“I sign off on all the documents,” Ms. Oda told the committee.


“And you were the one who wrote the ‘not?’ asked Liberal MP John McKay (Scarborough-Guldwood, Ont.

“I did not say I was the one who wrote the ‘not,’” Ms. Oda replied.

“Who did then?” asked Mr. McKay.

“I don’t know,” responded Ms. Oda.

Later, she told the committee: “I cannot say who wrote the ‘not.’”

Of course, Monday, she was at least clear that the NOT was inserted AFTER the recommendation was made and signed by the two senior CIDA officials, making it pretty clear that the decision to decline funding was not merely an issue of KAIROS not meeting funding guidelines.

She still hasn't made clear when SHE signed it, which is, I think, pretty relevant to the whole issue going back to whether or not what Jason Kenney said in the first place is actually true.

Oh.

And by the way.

If I give you a cheque, which at it's simplest is a letter to my bank recommending that they give you $1.00, and then sign it to seal my intention - and you alter it AFTER I sign it to suggest that I had some different intention, such as, oh, giving you $100.00..  that is called forgery.

Just sayin'

On Bev Oda - Respectful Disagreement with "Prairie Tory" and "A Few Figs"

Conservatives getting caught in a "NOT"

So, anyway.

About the whole stupid Bev Oda situation.

Yesterday, MaryT stopped by and suggested that my perspective was a little off, and pointed me to fellow Conservative blogger Prairie Tory, who, along with A Few Figs, has neatly dusted off the whole Oda idiocy with a shrug, relying on the support of one of the other signatories to the edited memo, President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Margaret Biggs.

Both Prairie Tory and A Few Figs point to her comments, and say, basically, "Look, the other signatory to the memo says no harm, no foul, so, what's all the hubbub," pointing to the following statement from Biggs:

Yes, I think as the minister said, the agency did recommend the project to the minister. She has indicated that. But it was her decision, after due consideration, to not accept the department’s advice.

This is quite normal, and I certainly was aware of her decision. The inclusion of the word “not” is just a simple reflection of what her decision was, and she has been clear. So that’s quite normal.


I think we have changed the format for these memos so the minister has a much clearer place to put where she doesn’t want to accept the advice, which is her prerogative.

Well.


All’s Well That Ends Well, no.

No.

Firstly, let’s put down the kool-aid glass for just a second and be, well, “conservative” in our review of this.. not in the sense of being a blind partisan, but in the sense of applying our own standards of right, wrong and common sense.

Margarent Biggs was “appointed” to CIDA in 2009. For those of us who have been involved politically, unfortunately, when you get appointed to a government plum position, that usually means that you are already a good supporter of the party. With few exceptions, government appoints their pals to these positions.

Why?

Because when the shit hits the fan, you can be counted on to back them up.

Ergo.. Margaret Biggs.

Margaret Biggs is a career political appointee, who understands that the way to keep your job is to keep your head down and not embarrass the boss.  Since Stephen Harper was elected Prime Minister, she has held the following Federal Government posts:

Prior to her appointment at CIDA, she was Deputy Secretary to Cabinet, Plans and Consultation, in the Privy Council Office, a position she held since May 2006. Ms. Biggs has held a variety of senior positions in the federal government including: Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Priorities and Planning, Privy Council Office, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Investment Programs and Associate Executive Head, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada.

Do you think she’s a “good soldier”?

And do you think, perhaps, she just might want another one of these lovely jobs when her current position expires in 2013?

So let's not get all warm and fuzzy because a good soldier got onside with her general, shall we?

Secondly, it doesn’t answer the more insidious question. Oda signed the document, which pretty clearly implies her approval – and it was later, according to her statement, that someone inserted the “NOT” into it.

Why didn’t she do it herself, if it was just a problem with the limitations of the “form”.  If Bev Oda really just exercised her Ministerial prerogative to over-ride the recommendation, why did she sign the recommendation, but not, at that time, make the edit to the form?

And while we talking about the limitations of this "Form", go read it again.

This form says, "Primary local partner - the organization works with 23 well-established local partners trusted by KAIROS."

Yes.  I'll bet they have thousands of these pre-printed "forms" just sitting around the CIDA office.

That was no form.  It was a drafted document.  So, the argument that this was a "limitation of the form" doesn't really wash.

And if you notice, Bev Oda signed the recommendation..  err.. the "NOT" recommendation, some two months after the other two committee members.  One might guess that amongs the thousands of civil servants in Ottawa, maybe, as this obviously wasn't an urgent priority, they might have found one employee to re-type the form, or maybe, oh I'm just spit-balling here.. maybe Bev Oda could have written a whole sentence in her own handwriting saying, "I respectfully decline to approve" or something like that.

Call me crazy, but as a government Minister, I'm guessing she talks and writes occasionally in complete sentences.

I’ll tell you what.

I’m guessing the committee reviews these things and then comes to a unanimous decision as a rule.  And then they draft the memo and they circulate it for signatures.

And then they sign the stupid form.

But this time, someone vetoed them.

I’d like to know who.

But then, as a card-carrying Conservative, who donates to the party.. I’m just another one of those lefties in a knot.

Not.

I'm a Conservative who doesn't like weasels when they are Liberals and I don't like them any more when they are Conservatives. 

In fact, I like them less.. because I don't expect federal Liberals to be honest and open.

From Conservatives, I expect more.

Today's Menu from the Conservative Caucus.. a load of Crap

Ok.

Enough sunshine and lollipops.

More bitching.

This time, about the party I support - or at least one MP in particular. 

I can deal with decisions made that I disagree with, even stupid decisions.

I can deal with mistakes being made, which are acknowledged - shit happens.

What I can't deal with is politicians feeding us bullshit and telling us that it's Pâté.

I would hope fellow conservatives would put down their partisan blinders for a moment with me and look at the Bev Oda situation objectively as possible.

The hubbub, as most are aware, surrounds the decision to turn down funding for KAIROS

Now - don't get me wrong - as a Conservative I often have differences of opinions with other Conservatives who aren't quite as libertarian as me, and see no difficulty in supporting a Christian theocracy in Canada, even as they bemoan the travesty of Islamic theocracies elsewhere.. and as such, I'm good with the government not giving money to a faith-based organization - no matter how laudable their purposes, KAIROS describing themselves as:

KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives is a web of people and partnerships dedicated to a faithful and decisive response to God’s call for respect for the earth and justice for its people. A faith-based ecumenical organization, inspired by a vision of God’s compassionate justice, KAIROS effects social change through advocacy, education and research programs in: Ecological Justice, Economic Justice, Energy and Extraction, Human Rights, Just and Sustainable Livelihoods, and Indigenous Peoples.

The problem, however, isn't that the government declined the funding - it's how.

And it all surrounds one little piece of paper - here:

Here's the rub.

Firstly, the two previous signatories to the document, signed a document approving the recommendation, their signatures being placed on the document on September 25, 2009. 

It was clearly after they endorsed their signature on a recommendation that the offending "NOT" was added, turning the recommendation into a recommendation NOT to approve funding.

Let's just digest that for a moment.

You are one of three people charged with the obligation to review a document and make a recommendation.  You and another individual agree to make the recommendation and sign a document to that effect.  Later, unknown to you, someone else changes the document to do exactly the opposite of what you intended, and effectively, forge your signature to a document you never intended to sign.

No difference, really, from giving your business partner a cheque for $10.00, letting him sign it, and then after the fact, adding three zeroes and turning it into a $10,000.00 cheque, n'est pas?

But it gets worse.

As I say.

People make mistakes.  Though that's a pretty big mistake.

But does Bev Oda just to a mea culpa, and ask forgiveness?

Nope.

She then tries to blow off some very legitimate questions about this, stating, "“It’s like we’re on CSI or an investigative forensic thing – who’s put the ‘not’ in. I’d like to know what your issue is,” she said then. “What is your issue?”

Alright - well, firstly, the issue is why did you change a document already signed by two others without their knowledge and approval.  That's a pretty big "that's why".  Beyond that, a legitimate issue was raised in commons to the suggestion that she did approve it, and then, hamfistedly changed (again) not only her approval but two other persons' as well, by adding "NOT", presumably at the direction of another - implied to be Stephen Harper.  In other words, if someone FORCED you to forge someone else's signature, that's a pretty big question too.

So.

Then.

The final "explanation" today from Oda?

The “not” was inserted at my direction.


Given the way the document was formatted, allowing only for concurrence, this was the only way to reflect my decision. If some were led to conclude that my language implied that the department and I were of one mind on this application, then I apologize.

I would, Mr. Speaker, indicate to you that the way in which this case has been handled, including by myself, has been unfortunate.

In conclusion, let me be clear. In the memo the department did make a recommendation to me, as the minister for funding. My decision, as the minister, did not concur with the recommendation of the department. My instructions were to indicate on the document my decision not to provide funding

. Note - she did not deny signing the document.  So, then, she signed the document - but for some reason, had someone else insert the "NOT" at her "direction".

If this doesn't stink like hell, you're drinking too much kool-aid. 

If we want to take the moral high ground on issues like Adscam, we'd better be prepared to walk the walk when our own are dirty - and this is dirty.

Shame on our party and our government for this piece of crap.  Man up and be honest.  There is no question that she approved it, and someone higher up, maybe Harper, said, "nope".

If that's the truth - say so - but don't insult us and the Party with this load of crap.

Please.

No Complaints Today - Things to Be Thankful For

Well.

Last week I was feeling a little bit, well, "negative".

I think people that are involved in politics, that write about politics or that are at least passionate about politics and the role it plays in society have a tendency if they are not careful in becoming a little bit negative in how they see the world.

There always seems to be something happening that creates angst or irritation, and particularly as a blogger, you spend a little time each day looking at that sore spot, and poking it a few times, before putting down your thoughts on your blog.

And then I go to work, and as a lawyer, I basically make my living helping people resolve battles of one sort of the other.

And it's easy to get caught up in negativity.

But.

Today, I'm not going to complain about anything.  I'm going to make a list of the 10 things that I'm thankful for as a result of living in Canada.  If you want to add to the list, feel free..

So.

Rob's Top 10 Reasons He's Thankful for Living In Canada

1.  Natural Beauty - the sheer beauty of this Country is staggering.  Living an hour north of Waterton Park, an hour east of the Crowsnest Pass and an hour and a half south of Banff is amazing. Whether I'm skiing in the winter or camping in the summer - how fortunate to be born and raised in this part of the world.

2.  Rational Resolution of Differences - with the exception of the FLQ crisis in my formative years, this is a country where differences are resolved by discussion and debate, not with guns and bombs.  This past month, while vacationing in Arizona, this point was made frighteningly clear with yet another nutjob who appeared to feel the key to making his point was using a 9mm handgun.  While we have our occasional gathering of mental midgets who use political process as an excuse for criminal behavior, they are relatively few and far between.

3.  A Healthy National Ego - Canada is the kind of country where we do not need to brag to be proud.  In general, when we travel abroad, we are proud Canadians, but carry our pride quietly, almost apologetically, unlike our neighbors to the South who seem to have a need to express how great the good ol' U.S. of A is at every opportunity.  Methinks it betrays a hidden insecurity.. you know, like the guy with the monster truck who doesn't maybe "measure up".

4.  A Relatively "Thinking" Electorate - again, unlike our neighbors to the South, I think Canadians are more likely to reconsider their voting options, as opposed to voting for the party their father and their father's father voted for.  I've met many, many people who are "former" something or other.. open to critically examine the party they voted for - which I think makes for a healthier democracy and requires parties to do more than just be "one trick ponies".  We have an NDP who acknowledges the need for a balanced budget, and we have a Conservative party that understands the need for healthy immigration and a functioning universal health care system. 

5.  While I live in Canada, I don't live in Quebec. 

6.  We don't spend 20% of our Federal Budget on Weapons and Defence.

7.  Neil Young.

8.  Wayne Gretzky instead of Barry Bonds.

9. Moderate Regulation of our Financial System - that just chugs along, and shows the world that sometimes "less" is more. 

10. Canadian Beer. 

Knock, knock.. is this the Ahmadinejad Residence?

NEXT!

Mubarak Steps Down - Cedes Authority to the Military

According to Al Jazeera in the last hour, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, has resigned from his post, handing over power to the armed forces.
"Omar Suleiman, the vice-president, announced in a televised address that the president was "waiving" his office, and had handed over authority to the Supreme Council of the armed forces."

Where will this lead Egypt, and in fact, the middle east?  It is difficult to say, but it is extremely impressive that a pro-democracy movement that does not appear to be dominated by extremist elements, has overthrown their leader by a revolution without a shot being fired.

Again echoing my earlier post, it is stunning how this has been accomplished with relatively modest loss of life - particularly considering how unrest in that part of the world has often portrayed itself.

Best wishes to the citizens of Egypt and here is a hope that we will shortly see a government of the people, by the people and for the people that contemplates a respect for all religious faiths and for peace - which, by all indications, the people of Egypt are demanding.

From the Ivory Tower of the Supreme Court of Canada - Lawyers Charge Too Much

Well.

So I read this morning, yet again, another criticism of the practice of law by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Madame Justice Beverly MacLachlin

According to the article in the Globe and Mail - The Chief Justice’s voice rose as she discussed a monopoly lawyers have on legal services. “If you’re the only one who can provide a fundamental social need from which you benefit, I think it follows that you have to provide it,” she said. “And I don’t think it’s enough to say we are providing it for the rich and the corporations. You have to find a way to provide it for everybody.”


That's pretty rich, Madame Justice.

I mean, coming from someone who has never had to struggle to pay a mortgage and feed a family while working many more hours and making much less money than classmates who were teachers with two years less education and student debt.

Just for some background, Madame Justice McLachlin graduated from the University of Alberta and was called to the Alberta bar  in 1969.  After moving to British Columbia and being called to the B.C. bar in 1971, she practiced law for 4 more years until she entered academia in 1975 at my former Alma mater, the University of British Columbia, and then began her career as a Judge in 1981, rising up the judicial ladder until being appointed as Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000.

While giving her credit for choosing a school of impeccable reputation to teach at, it is apparent that the career path of her ladyship betrays a virtual absence of "real world" experience in the practice of law.

She was a lawyer for 6 years.  That's it.  She practiced law long enough to basically figure out where to find the court house and how to fill out a small claims summons.

And yet, after a total of perhaps six years of experience as a lawyer - during which time, I would be shocked if she ever actually worked for a legal aid client - she is pontificating about the obligation of the profession to provide the "fundamental social need" of legal assistance.

Really?

So, if we have homeless and disadvantaged with not enough to eat, is there a demand for Superstore to provide free groceries.

For those of us fortunate enough to have our own homes, is there a demand that we all take in the homeless.

No.

Just lawyers.  The problems of the whole of society in having what they consider to be proper access to justice should lie at the feet of the lawyers and the lawyers alone.

Lovely.

Funny thing, is I'm thinking she's not offering to reduce her salary to help the needy litigants of this country now, is she?

Let me let you in on a little secret.  I'm a family lawyer.  I've been doing this for some 26 years, and there were times when I worked 16 to 18 hours, at less than my fellow classmates who were teachers - and my holidays until about 6 years ago, never exceeded two weeks in a year.

But I love what I do.  And I enjoy helping my clients, particularly in "Collaborative Law" which helps people avoid going to Court at all.

But here's the thing..

There was a time when a client could sign a marital contract - prenuptial agreement, settlement agreement - and if they had a lawyer explain the agreement to them, and advise them of their rights to obtain further information IF THEY WANTED that would be it.  All done.  Easy.

Agreements could often be drafted over a few hours, and once completed, they were pretty much a done deal.

No more.

Nope.

You see, our Supreme Court of Canada has decided that these agreements need to be more fully scrutinized, to make sure they are fair.  (There are no other forms of contracts at law requiring this).   The Supreme Court of Canada has basically ruled that even if you have an agreement, and even if your spouse has their own lawyer and has had independent advice, and even if they have signed an acknowledgement saying they are aware of their rights and even if their lawyer has signed an acknowledgment saying they have explained their rights to them - the agreement MIGHT be enforced by the Court.

This means that an "agreement" is no bar to lengthy and protracted litigation any longer.  No such thing in family law anymore as an "ironclad agreement".  Lovely.

What does this mean for the average person?

Well, it means that, when you draft an agreement, a lawyer is going to be obligated to much more work than you may want them to - because the Supreme Court of Canada says they must. 

So what once was an agreement drafted in an hour or two, and, with a review meeting, a cost of maybe $750.00 - has now turned into a major peace of legal work, and a significantly higher cost.  Not because the lawyer wants to, not because the client wants to, but because our Courts have said they must.  Because if they don't - the agreement may not be respected by the Court.

Beyond that - now, any agreement negotiated in the last 30 years could be attacked as not meeting the demands of the Supreme Court that not only did both parties respond honestly to any inquiry made by their spouse and their lawyer - but they were required to positively assure that they provided any documentation or information that MIGHT be considered pertinent to the issues in the agreement.

And the result.

Lots of legal fees.  Lots of litigation.

So.

Before Madame Ivory Tower gets too high and mighty, perhaps she might show just a modicum of humility considering her experience as a lawyer is almost non-existent, and considering that the decisions of her and her friends on the bench are driving up the cost of legal service as much as anything else.

Just sayin'

PS: from the Alberta Wage and Salary Survey -

Average Dentist Income $186,044;
Average Lawyer Income - $111,310;
Average Kindergarten and Elementry School Teacher Income - $67,652.00 ;
Average Registered Nurse Income - $72,290.00

Egypt Protesters.. and Impressive Display

Just a quick comment regarding the situation in Egypt..

I'm not even close to an expert on the middle east, though, like everyone else, I have opinions that I sometimes exchange here and there.. but I think it perhaps is worth while for a conservative blogger to note that as much as we occasionally may imply (and some even state) that the citizens of the middle east are somehow less than civilized, the incredible patience shown by literally millions of Egyptians protesting the current government is impressive.

I watch and am dumbfounded that while the citizens are obviously outraged by the refusal of Mubarak to step down, the collective wisdom of the protesters in making their point so peacefully is an spectacle not often seen in this world where so often we see "protest" as an excuse for pointless violence and property damage.

To the citizens of Egypt, I hope you find a peaceful resolution, and in the meanwhile, well done.

PS **BREAKING NEWS**

BBC and Al Jazeera report that President Mubarak has stepped down and has transferred power to the military.

A revolution overthrowing a dictatorship appears to have succeeded without a shot being fired.

Alberta Government - The Unpopular "Rich Kid"

FYI.. http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/pc/civil/publication/waiverfilingfee.pdf

If you want to sue someone, you can have a net worth of a billion dollars, but if you are a four person family with income under $42,000.00 the Alberta Government will waive any Court filing costs.

So.. you can go to Court and thrash around to your heart's content (which, trust me, people do with wild abandon) running up the cost to the taxpayer.

Of course, there is no audit or effort to verify any information regarding income, other than some poor court clerk being asked to review the application without any opportunity or requirement to verify that the information they get is even real.

Neither "progressive" nor "conservative"..   more like, well, the rich kid that no one liked in high school who had to buy the others kids stuff to get invited to parties (or voted for).

Frank Talk (Finally) Regarding Alberta Health Care

Well.

At least someone is doing something beyond being stuck in the mud over "Canada" v. "U.S." health care.

Such as looking at OTHER ideas in other countries.

For example, so-called "extreme" conservative Danielle Smith is looking to that bastion of pure capitalism, Sweden, for insight.

Go figure.

The socialists in Sweden are providing more effective health care, through a system where "one in four health-care facilities is now privately run, have introduced a strong element of private delivery under the publicly-funded model."

Private/Public partnership in Sweden you say?

What say the NDP and the Liberals to that?

Canada.. the land of the mediocre?

Well.

Sport Canada doesn't like our children competing.

Like so many things in Canada, government bureaucrats just can't help leaving things alone, and are bound and determined to create regulatory frameworks for everything you can imagine, including, now, youth sports.

As reported by the Winnipeg Free Press, under pressure of Sport Canada, the Manitoba Soccer Association will be outlawing score keeping for children 12 and under. 

As reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, Sport Canada has told the Canadian Soccer Association and every other organized sport that they have three years to implement the goals of the Long Term Athlete Development program, or face consequences to their funding, Vergara said.

Goals like more practices and fewer games.  And games that don't allow score keeping for pre-teenagers.

Really?

Just what Canada needs.  More "participation ribbons".

I'm waiting for the day where our surgeons and civil engineers obtain degrees just because they "do their best".

Won't that be swell?

CRTC loves Eminem?

CRTC Darling, Marshall Mathers

Well.

RayK stopped by the blog yesterday to take issue with my warnings of progressive effort to create a risk-free society.  In particular, he took issue with the suggestion of music being banned or censored by the liberals among us, and suggested, really that was the purview of conservatives.

I appreciate his thoughts, and am thankful for this medium allowing people to connect in a civil way.

And with all respect, I disagree with him.

Respectfully.

Firstly, there is a mountain of difference between Canadian conservatives and U.S. Conservatives.  Canada conservative effort typically relates to fiscal issues, not social issues - whereas the U.S. Conservative movement has a much stronger social conservative element, arising from a large presence of what I occasionally refer to as Christian extremists.

So.

Firstly, don't use comparisons of American conservatives to make a point regarding Canadian Politics.

While certainly, there are Christian Extremists like Charles McVety in Canada - the reality is that censorship in modern media is alive and well - and it isn't coming from the right.

In response to RayK who wrote, "If you actually believe that progressives want to do things like ban Eminem, then you really have no idea who progressives are or what they want":


Uh, can you say "Money for Nothing"?  Canadian Broadcast Standards Council says you can't play it because it uses the term "faggot" - never mind the context of the use.  For those who aren't conversant with the offending lyrics, the song is basically about a blue collar worker complaining over how rock stars live compared to him - here's the offending portion:

We gotta install microwave ovens

Custom kitchen deliveries

We gotta move these refrigerators

We gotta move these colour TV's

See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup

Yeah buddy that’s his own hair

That little faggot got his own jet airplane

That little faggot he’s a millionaire

That HAS been censored, in fact, by the CRTC.  And that is not a response to "conservative pressure".

Now then.  If you think that is "ban worthy", imagine if someone brings this to their attention, from Eminem's "Criminal":

My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge

And I'll stab you in the head, whether you're a fag or lez

A homosex, hermaph, or a transeves

Pants address, hey fags, the answer's yes

Homophobic?

Nah, you're just heterophobic

Starin' in my jeans, watchin' my genetiles bulgin'

That's my mothafuckin' balls, you better let go of 'em

They belong in my scrotum, you'll never get ahold of 'em

Hey, it's me, Versace

Whoops, somebody shot me

And I was just checkin' the mail

Get it, checkin' the male?

How many records you expectin' to sell?

After your second LP sends you directly to jail

Come on, relax cat

I like gay men, right Ken?

Give me an Amen

"Amen!"

Yes.  I'm sure the progressives over at the CRTC would give Eminem a pass, but would ban Dire Straits.  They just don't know about it.  Which is the other stupid thing about censorship - it's so arbitrary.

And if we want to really get into the most insidious censorship in Canada, we would discuss the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.. but that would take all day.

Sure - there are those in the progressive movement who are very anti-censorship, and there are those in the conservative movement who would be pro-censorship - but by and large, the drive to "help" us by advocating more government regulation and control comes from well intentioned "progressives".

Thank-you, I'll take  a pass on the hand of the State on my shoulder.





 

Liberal Ideology = Benevolent Fascism

To "Live" is a risk..

So.

Anyway.

Last night, I was talking to my daughter about life, music, politics and whatnot.  And we got to talking about rap music, which is her current genre of choice - though she has, thankfully, developed an appreciation for 70's rock, especially Led Zeppelin and even went through a Frank Sinatra phase some time ago.

But I digress.

I asked her how she would feel if someone banned Eminem.  She seemed to think that perhaps wouldn't be a good idea..  and I suggested that there were large portions of our population who would seek to pass laws just like that.  Because they would think it was "good for us".

I have pretty much every Eminem album ever made, so I'm pretty conversant with his music.  And most certainly, songs about a husband murdering his wife, and then taking their daughter with him to dispose of her body ('97 Bonnie & Clyde) don't appear to offer much in terms of "social value" and to many would more than cross a line into what they would consider to be "damaging" to society.

So, I suggested that many well-intentioned people would be happy to ban his music, and many more people would be happy to give them that authority.

We see it all the time.

And don't get me wrong.  These people who would pass such laws are very well intentioned.  They want to help people and believe that if they can prevent harm to others, it is their duty to do so.  I would surmise that in the whole of the NDP and Liberal Parties that I'm so fond of attacking, there are probably very few people that aren't legitimately trying to do what they think is best, for the noblest of reasons.

The problem is, well, for life to be worth living, for a free society, we have to tolerate the reality that bad things will happen.  Crimes will still occur, accidents will happen, and people will be hurt and even die.

That's life.

Can you imagine a perfectly safe world?

To combat heart disease and stroke, well, first of all, we would start subtly, by preventing sale of soda pop and potato chips in school vending machines.  From there we would outlaw fried food in school cafeterias.  Easy.  Children are used to adults telling them what to do.

From there, we move into broader social engineering.  We outlaw fried foods in restaurants for everyone.  No more KFC, no corn dogs at the fair.  Sure, it changes our life experience, but to save a few hundred thousand lives, it's a small price to pay, no?  While we're at it, we have the government controlling how many drinks should be served in bars - so why not control how many burgers can be sold to a customer.  No more drive-throughs or take-out, however, that would open the door to abuse, and just ads to polution.  One hamburger each, thank-you, with your salad.  Dressing on that salad?  Surely you jest.

Of course, to manage all of this, we need to expand our civil service, which costs money.  No problem, as we did with tobacco, we just start massive tax imposition on food deemed unhealthy.  Cake, chips, donuts - we just add a few dollars to each item to "encourage" healthy choices. 

Alright.. now what?

Well, what about  motor vehicle accidents?  Firstly all those cars are pumping out CO2 by the boatload, so we don't really want cars on the roads anyway.  So, we massively increase mass transit - buses, trains, and offer it up at costs that make driving a car unattractive.  Of course, again, this all costs a pile of money, so, more taxes - well intentioned mind you - on gas, on automobile sales, and, while we're at it, we significantly increase registration costs for private vehicles.  Eventually, we have nothing but public transit, resulting in a virtual end to motor vehicle accident injuries and fatalities and in the bargain, we massively reduce CO2.

Done?

Hardly.

Have you seen the number of injuries on ski hills, skate board parks and trampolines? 

Get rid of them.  Like target shooting with guns - they pose risk, those risks cost us health care dollars and they are just "recreation" anyway, so the easy answer is to close all ski hills, skateboard parks and outlaw sale of trampolines, or just make it so difficult and time consuming that no one wants to bother even trying to get their ski permit.

While we're at it, there's a lot of drowning victims costing us money in EMT trips and ER visits - so, let's outlaw fishing and sale of recreational watercraft completely.  No more leisurely canoe trips.  Sorry - but it's "good for you".

Oh.

And getting back to the starting point.  You can forget about buying an Emenim album, thank-you.  And that also goes for subversives like Bruce Springsteen and his songs glorifying mass murder (Nebraska) - and don't even get me going about pro-drug songs like "Puff the Magic Dragon" by Peter, Paul and Mary.

It's only recreation, after all.

And of course we'll need to either outlaw or edit literature from writers like Mark Twain and William Faulkner - because we can't tolerate literature that uses the term "nigger", or misogynist women-hating literature from hacks like Henry Miller.

What are we to do with the literature and music that's already out there?

Well, as a society, we bent over and took arbitrary detention through check stops, allowing police to detain us with out due cause to make sure we aren't drinking or *gasp* driving without our seat belts.  We have radar cameras, red light cameras, and really, why not cameras in all of our neighborhoods and.. if we are going to go that far, why not go the full nine yards and install police cameras in our homes?

If you're not doing anything wrong - what are you afraid of, no?

Welcome to the perfect liberal society.

All well-intentioned.

All because it's "good for us".

Safe?  Maybe.

I prefer to accept risk and live.

Alberta PC-TV - Really? If you can't take reality, create your own..

Well.

This is impressive.

While I toiled in the sub-strata of the PC Party for many years, one of my efforts was to reconnect the party with the reality of the people in our communities who weren't members of some particular lobby with their hand out for some government "cookie".

And while lip service kept coming over the party acknowledging the need to re-invent itself, and to reconnect with its "grass roots", in fact it was always that - lip service.

For example - during one Annual General Meeting, there was a proposed policy initiative approved by the membership as follows:

Be it resolved that the government establish a program to support the promotion of Collaborative Law as an alternative to litigation in disputed family law matters, including the establishment of legislation setting out basic guidelines for practice and requiring minimum training obligations for collaborative law practitioners in the Province of Alberta

No big deal really - just a way to help people stay out of Court (saving tax dollars) helping families retain functionality post-separation (helping children and families, and, indirectly, saving more tax dollars), and allowing people to take more personal responsibility for the organization of their affairs as opposed to lining up in front of Judges to have it imposed upon them.

Seems pretty, well, "Conservative", but more important than ideological principals - it works for families and helps reduce cost to government.

The success of the process, particularly in Southern Alberta, was initially astounding, significantly reducing Court involvement - a success that was reported in the National Post, and, in fact, became relatively well-known world wide in the Collaborative community - one article in Denton County Texas referring to the Bar there becoming the "Medicine Hat of Texas"

The grass roots had spoken - the proposal was sound and in fact well regarded all over North America.

The response of the Alberta Government to this "grass roots" policy proposal?  ..uh  other than some brief lip service in Hansard  ...nothing.  Nada.  Zilch.  Not interested.

Of course the Attorney General for Alberta is that hard line, neo-conservative..  Alison Redford.

So. 

Such is how things work in Alberta.  If you are a utility company seeking to impose your will by building lines across farmers fields who thought they actually owned the land they farmed, well, the government of Alberta jumps.

But if you are just an Albertan, even an Albertan with a great idea to help the government..  well, you see, the Alberta government doesn't talk WITH you, it talks AT you.

So anyhow.. back to the point of the blog.

The PC party is in difficulty.

And what do they need to do?  They need to work hard to reconnect with the reality of average, everyday Albertans.

And what do they do in fact?

They "create reality". 

They produce a pleasant little sort of Progressive Conservative "feel good" news broadcast, and hope that, like the good little followers of Jim Jones in Guyana, we'll just line up and drink the kool-aid.

Problem is, they're not fooling anyone.

Quebec and their Slow March Back into the Primordial Soup

The Soup du jour in Quebec..  returning to their roots.

"A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?"

(Do you speak Gaelic?)

You don't?  Why not?  A good part of this country was settled by Scottish immigrants, my family hails from Scotland, it's a part of who I am.  How could I go on, how could I have value as a participant in Canadian society - without speaking Gaelic?

Really - I'm shocked that we haven't passed laws requiring children to be taught Gaelic as their first language - otherwise, our culture is doomed.

Does that sound, hopefully, as stupid to you as it does to me?

I don't actually speak Gaelic.  I'm proud of my heritage - but then, I'm also proud of my Hungarian heritage - and don't really feel that the fact that I don't speak any of my ancestral languages is a loss to me or my children.

You see, I'm Canadian.

I live in a modern world.

I drive a car - I have no horse outside my door.  When I have an infection, I take antibiotics, and I prefer to have a local anesthetic when I have dental work done when I attend my dentist.

I do not own an abacus, and in fact, I am producing this blog on the internet with a laptop computer - and occasionally use an ipad to connect with friends and family on facebook, unless I choose to phone them on my iphone.

**sigh**  What a loss that I have adapted to an evolving culture, where more people the world over can communicate directly with common languages as opposed to staring at each other dumbly as they ready for the next siege in a war over their differences.

Quebec, on the other hand, is all hot and bothered to de-evolve.  They, apparently, don't wish to join the rest of the world in the inevitable evolution to a changing global culture.  They like things just like they were back in 1534 when France walked in and declared the territory of "New France" - ignoring the obvious reality that the country was already occupied by aboriginal peoples.  Nevertheless, from that point, apparently, the cultural identity of Quebec was established and was never to change.

Really?

Well, Quebec - have fun with that.

Your sad paranoia, so deep that even questioning the necessity of Bill 101 by Maxime Bernier throws you into spastic fits, is just that - sad.

Next we understand the Quebecois will be developing gills and slithering back into the primordial soup.

Can't happen quick enough.

"Mar sin leibh an dràsda."
(Ta Ta for now!)