Quintus Caecilius Felix

2007-07-18T06:13:00.000-06:00

Quote of the Day:
"We have these rights, and we must not give them up, even if, at times, it's a little inconvenient and a little cumbersome and the odd guy with some drugs goes free." Larry Myers, Defense Attorney for Ajitpal Singh Sekhon as reported in this Globe and Mail story.

In January 2005, Mr. Sekhon's truck was searched at a border crossing by Canadian customs officials, who found a 'hidden compartment' which contained 50 kilograms of cocaine. Mr. Sekhon was acquitted last week by BC Provincial Court Judge Ellen Gordon, who ruled the search was unconstitutional because customs officials failed to obtain judicial authorization before dismantling Mr. Sekhom's truck. Also, according to Judge Gordon, customs officials further violated Mr. Sekhom's constitutional rights by preventing him from leaving during the early stages of the search and did not allow him access to legal counsel until after the cocaine had been discovered.

This is a complicated issue. In her wisdom, Judge Gordon determined that the border guard's decision to search the truck was based on "a lucky hunch" rather than 'reasonable grounds'. This is a helpful distinction and is, I'm sure, appreciated by the veteran customs officer who ordered the search, just as we all enjoy others telling us how to do our jobs.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm delighted to see someone taking an interest in overseeing Canada customs officials defending us from drugs, as well as 'obscene' porn books imported by a bookstore in Vancouver, and those evil 13-year olds bringing in oil paintings without a signed appraisal from the artist (and yes I'm still bitter about spending over $65 to satisfy Canada customs that the painting I bought in the UK for $85 was indeed only worth $85...).

But even I'd rather see customs get nailed for the cars and trucks it dismantles and the people it holds incommunicado without finding drugs. Because, as I see it and if this decision holds up, this is a lose-lose scenario for law-abiding, taxpaying Canadians. On one hand, we can put up with more delays at the border as customs officials cover their butts, ahem, I mean fulfill their legal obligations by seeking warrants. And even though Mr. Myers assures us a telephone warrant can be obtained in four or five minutes, multiply that by 20 cars a day for however many border crossings there are and you get a whole lot of man-hours being used (and paid for by taxpayers) by both judicial and customs officials to distinguish 'lucky hunches' from 'reasonable doubt'. The other option, of course, is even worse. We can just let the Ajitpal Singh Sekhons of the world drive right on through our borders with however many kilos of cocaine that they can conceal in their vehicles.

As I say, it's a complicated issue, made even more so now by last week's decision. I'm unhappy to read about a drug smuggler going free after trying to bring 50 kilos of coke into Canada. But I'm really pissed about reading the comments aimed at law-abiding Canadians by the smuggler's counsel who should have had the sense or decency to shut up rather than exulting in the system his client (ab)used to avoid criminal consequences for his actions...

2007-06-13T08:15:00.000-06:00

Dumb Analyst Comment of the Night…

It was a tough call to make, but this award goes to David Taras of the University of Calgary for wondering “What Tory riding is safe after tonight?” after the Liberal victory in Calgary-Elbow in this Calgary Herald article.

Maybe Drumheller-Stettler?

An Honourable Mention to:

Keith Brownsey from Mount Royal College who is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying, "Tonight marks the end of the Klein era. It's over."

Uh, right...

2007-06-13T07:46:00.000-06:00

You Win Some...

I'm actually talking about my prediction about Drumheller-Stettler here, where after my obligatory disclaimer of ignorance about the riding, I then went and proved it by predicting a big gain for the Alberta Alliance. Instead, they dropped to fifth (!) place. while the Alberta Liberals finished second with about 14% (which is about the same share as the Alliance got in '04). This is interesting because it suggests that there's a somewhat significant segment of the population that is anti-PC and will vote for whatever party is most likely to challenge them. Something for PC analysts to think about when planning election strategy...

Still analyzing the poll-by-poll breakdown for Calgary-Elbow. More on that later...

2007-06-10T10:25:00.000-06:00

Win or Lose - We Still Lose
The By-Elections on Tuesday

On Tuesday, June 12, provincial by-elections will be held in Calgary-Elbow and Drumheller-Stettler to replace the seats vacated by former Premier Ralph Klein and former Deputy Premier Shirley McClellan. How the ruling PC Party does is being considered a key test for Ed Stelmach, who just started his seventh month as Alberta's latest Premier.

Now, I like Ed and I think most people who've met him and talked with him on a one-on-one basis come away with a positive impression of his capabilities and his genuine desire to make Alberta a better place for all. But that message seems to be getting lost in this world of 15-second soundbites, Mayors who want to be Premier and media outlets determined to 'report' Alberta's superheated economy being almost as bad as the Great Depression!

But the grim reality for Premier Stelmach is that whether his party wins or loses the outcomes on Tuesday, it's still going to be painted as bad news.

Drumheller-Stettler
What I don't know about this riding could fill volumes. But what I do know is that rural by-elections in Alberta usually produce out-of the-ordinary results. The only separatist elected in Alberta's history from the WCC party was elected from Olds in a by-election and in a much more recent by-election in Wainwright, a Liberal MLA was elected, only to be tossed out a short time later when the riding went strongly PC in the following general election. In the last election in 2004, the incumbent, Shirley McClellan, won two-thirds of all votes cast and over four times as many votes as her nearest opponent from the Alberta Alliance. What's notable is that the then (and current) Official Opposition party, the Alberta Liberals, did not run in that riding.

No one is expecting that kind of result on Tuesday and most PC's are just hoping/praying for a win, whatever the margin. Personally, I think the prayers will be answered just because a 53% margin of difference is too high a mountain to overcome in one go. But in the larger sense, it doesn't matter, because even if the PC candidate, Jack Hayden, wins, the story is going to be all about the impressive gains made by the Alberta Alliance (and they will make big gains). So even if Premier Stelmach's party wins in Drumheller on Tuesday, the focus is going to be on the 'threat from the right' and the 'challenge in rural Alberta' to a Premier whose strongest base of support is considered to be in rural Alberta. Of course, it's quite possible that the Alliance could win, particularly if the Liberals do well in third place. But really, the story dynamics don't change in that case, they just become more emphatic.

Calgary-Elbow
I know this riding better having worked politically in it about a decade ago. Calgary-Elbow is not, by far, the safest seat in Calgary for the PCs, even under its former incumbent, Premier Klein. To me, the only thing that keeps this race close is the difference in the actual candidates. The PC candidate, Brian Heninger, is a successful local businessman, with strong roots in the constituency that go a long way back making his first try into electoral politics, while his opponent, Craig Cheffins, has twice run for office as an alderman and lost both times. Personally, I think this election's a coin-toss with 'heads' being the local guy comes through for the PCs. But it's equally possible that Elbow voters will choose to shoot the messenger for 'tails'.

But, once again, none of this stops this by-election being a lose-lose for Premier Ed. If the PCs hold on, it will be painted as a good local candidate pulling through despite being dragged down by a Premier who's unpopular in Calgary; and if the PCs lose, it will be hailed far-and-wide as a "stunning indictment" of the new Premier.

So, in both cases, win or lose, Premier Stelmach and the PC Party still lose. In my opinion, It's not so much a leadership thing (yet), but it's largely a function of having had no effective opposition for well over a decade now. The party has gotten lazy and 'sloppy' and hasn't really been punished for it yet (Calgary Varsity aside). Those of us who hoped that new leadership would energize things, have been disappointed so far. To turn things around, we need to do two things.

First, we don’t just have to set the agenda, we have to own it. There’s an adage in politics that a new government has a window within its first 18 months to get things done, before inertia grinds things to a halt. If that’s true, then six months, or one-third of that time is gone, and we don’t have a lot to show for it. While I understand and appreciate that the Premier wants to consult and plan carefully, time’s a-wasting! In other words, if Ralph Klein had spent his first six months in office in consulting and planning, I’ve no doubt there would have been no ‘miracle on the prairies’ to follow…

Adding to our failure to 'own the agenda' is our inability as a party or a government to communicate effectively either through the media or 'over' them directly to the people. Right now, rehashing old announcements (last week marked the fourth time a new hospital has been ‘announced’ for southern Calgary), full-colour brochures (like the June 2007 ‘Report to Albertans’, which likely went straight into the garbage or, if we’re lucky, the recycling bin) with pretty pictures and vague progress reports, endless news releases that rarely have anything ‘newsworthy’, and road-trips by the Premier around the province just aren’t going to cut it.

Something needs to be done. In both these areas. And by September at the very latest.

Otherwise, the PC Party’s going to wake up one morning soon and find out that the Liberals have learned to stop ‘opposing’ and have become what Stephen Harper made of the federal Conservatives (or Decore made of the Alberta Liberals in the early ‘90s), a government-in-waiting. At that moment, the PC Party’s days are numbered and the party’s over.

2007-04-17T18:07:00.000-06:00

Gun Control

As a Canadian, my motivation for seeing stricter gun control in the USA includes a large amount of selfishness. And that's because the vast majority of illegal firearms in Canada likely come from legal purchases made in the USA and then brought across a very long border.

Having said that, I have little patience with those who claim that gun controls, including a registration/licensing procedure, is an infringement on their 'rights'. Governments, even in the 'land of the free' restrict the legal operation of cars based on age and a proven competency in its operation (demonstrated through obtaining a driver's license). Governments demand that owners register their cars (and, heck, even our pets). Does the NRA oppose vehicle registration? Is that a restriction to one's right to own property?

Rights come balanced with responsibilities. So, yes, I agree with a strong control system that says if you want the right to bear a gun, you have to demonstrate a responsibility by going through a licensing and registration process. And I'd go further to have stronger mandatory sentences (both fines and jail time) for those carrying illegal/unregistered firearms or failing to report to the authorities if their gun has been lost or stolen or if they are found to be keeping firearms in an unsafe manner. And while I can agree that such restrictions can be burdensome on lawful, responsible gun owners, they should be prepared to show the rest of us that responsible gun use isn't just a convenient phrase, but is a title one has to work to earn.

Having said all that, I think there are enough justifiable uses for firearms (especially in rural areas) that I'd certainly oppose a total ban. Such a ban would, no doubt, cut down on gun-related deaths. But thousands, too, die every year in/struck by automobiles. Should we then ban cars? Not to mention I could also make the argument that in the hands of a crazy person, an SUV can do a lot of damage on a busy street). So then, the whole argument on gun ownership is part of a larger argument about freedom and order. In a world where you have total freedom, you'd have anarchy. In a world of total order, you have totalitarianism. All rational people recognize that there has to be compromise on the 2 extremes, but the staggering number of lives lost to gun violence in the USA shows that the current compromise has to be re-worked in favour of greater public safety.

My own view is if there's going to be real change on this in the USA, it's going to have to come from the ground up, not the top down. There's going to have to be a change in attitude towards guns and responsible gun ownership akin to the changes underway in attitudes of discrimination towards gays, women, people of varying ethnicities, etc. It's sad but the magnitude of the problem means progress will take time. According to the Brady Campaign there were 65 million privately owned handguns in the US in 1996 and another 127+ million privately owned long arms. That's a very steep hill to climb, but the cost of not climbing it was shown all to clearly yesterday morning in Virginia.

2007-04-16T17:08:00.000-06:00

A Fundamental Question

Two students were shot dead in their dormitory early this morning, by a gunman, who some two hours later, killed another 30 in a classroom at Virginia Tech University. There will, no doubt, be questions about the slow response of the University to warn students after the first shooting, whether the police investigation could have been more efficient and perhaps prevented or limited the second. And there will certainly be broader questions about gun control once more information is released on the weapons used, and how they were acquired.

But I have a different question that’s probably unanswerable, but for me it cuts to the heart of the situation. How can someone get up in the morning (or night or whenever) and say to himself, ‘Today’s the day I am going to go out and kill dozens of people”? There are certain situations, where I believe I could kill. To defend myself, or others, against attack and maybe even for certain principles in an armed conflict.

But considering such situations doesn't help me make the conceptual breakthrough to understand how someone could do such a thing as this unknown man did today. Religions, ideologies, and patriotism are among the motives that have inspired men to do terrible things, and continue to do so. Maybe we’ll find one of those (or something similar) at the core of today’s tragedy. Because, to me, hatred is so personal and life so precious, that taking 'revenge' by killing 20 or 30 of your fellow human beings in an hour or two, many of whom will have no idea as to why they're dying one morning defies my understanding.

And sure, there's an 'easy' answer that passes this off as the result of some form of mental illness only conceivable by the insane. But that then begs the question how could such a person, possessing such malicious forethought as to plan this kind of deed, possibly pass himself off as a sane human being between the time he conceived such horror and when he executed it?

2007-04-14T12:04:00.000-06:00

Goodbye Belinda...

Not long ago, there would be derision in those words responding to Belinda Stronach’s announcement, earlier this week, she would not be running for Parliament again. And yes, I am chuckling at yet another headache for Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, by this example shown by the person Dion tasked with getting more women to run as Liberal candidates in the next election (sorry, but I simply can’t resist the obvious jab…). And yet I'm finding I will miss Belinda's presence in Canadian politics.

When I heard the announcement, that feeling of regret and loss surprised the heck out of me, because I hadn’t realized that my views on Belinda have were slowly climbing, rollercoaster-like, once again. I first became aware of her by hearing of her behind-the-scenes involvement in trying to unite Canada’s Progressive Conservative Party with the Canadian Alliance (former Reform Party). Such a union was vitally necessary if Canadians were ever again to be given a real national alternative to the governing Liberals, and I honoured her efforts to play a role in making that union happen. I was also very impressed with her run for the leadership of the new Conservative Party and her subsequent election as MP, even though she had not won the race.

And, frankly, it was good to see her, as a Conservative MP, continuing to speak up for some values shared by me, and other Conservatives I know of, even if our leader didn’t always see them that way. It seemed to prove to me the Conservative Party was indeed worthy of my support and was big enough to incorporate a diversity of views that Canadians expect from a party with aspirations to govern and not just oppose.

Then, of course, came the jarring crash caused by her decision to cross the floor to prop up Paul Martin’s minority government on the eve before a crucial non-confidence vote that he was likely to lose by the slimmest of margins. Her acceptance of the Ministry of Human Resources in exchange for preserving Mr. Martin’s government was, in my view, a particularly low point in Canadian politics and I remained both angry and contemptuous of her for a long time afterwards.

I’m not sure at what point my opinion of her began to improve. Looking back, I think it was partly due to how well she withstood the abuse hurled at her at the time and afterwards (particularly her low-keyed response to Peter MacKay's 'dog' comment when some of her colleagues were almost frenzied with hysteria). Also, unlike many who switch parties, her decision was eventually sustained by her constituents in Newmarket-Aurora in the subsequent election, and also partly because she ultimately failed to follow Scott Brison’s ridiculous attempt to have run for the leadership of two separate parties in recent years.

But I think what really prompted my feeling of regret this week is my memories of how she has never been afraid to stand up and express her opinions. Sure, some of those opinions have received (and maybe even deserved) a critical and condescending response from the media and elsewhere. But I find it most praiseworthy how she didn't let negative responses intimidate her into silence or, even worse, the the petulance shown by others who have changed parties (I'm thinking of Scott Brison and Garth Turner here). Also, while Belinda's always had access to a big microphone since entering politics (a much bigger microphone than most rookie MPs or Cabinet Ministers have), to my mind she rarely abused it the way so many of her colleagues did and do to talk ‘down’ to Canadians in general. Throughout her short and often-stormy political career, she has shown an independence and strength of spirit I wish I saw in more of her colleagues on all sides of the House of Commons.

I certainly can’t blame her for leaving. After all, her political prospects would currently seem to indicate a continued period in opposition. Or, in a best-case scenario, she might hope to receive a Ministry in another shaky minority Liberal government under a leader who (again) is so far proving to be a disappointment to members of his own party. When you compare those prospects to what’s happening at Magna with their potential acquisition of Chrysler, it's no wonder she’s jumping at the chance to return to an influential decision-making role in corporate life. So, while I wish her well, I can’t help but feel that political life in this country is being lessened a bit by her departure. And I find, to my surprise, I will miss her in the next Parliament.

2007-04-13T21:21:00.000-06:00

The Green Party of Canada
Bringing the Smell of Compost
To an Election Near You!

I am of course, referring to the deal announced today by Elizabeth May and Stephane Dion, respectively the new leaders of the Green and Liberal Parties.

Under the terms of the Nazi-Soviet (oops, I mean Dion-May) non-aggression pact. The Liberals have agreed not to put up a candidate in the riding of Central Nova, held by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, where Ms. May will run in the next election. In return, the Greens will not field a candidate in Mr. Dion’s riding.

The quotes coming from Elizabeth May at today’s announcement are hilarious!

“There is no time to waste. Because of our electoral system, I do not have a choice. I have to collaborate." Nope, no time to waste at all for democracy and freedom of choice. It’s not like May has her choice of 308 ridings to run in to put her case before the people (oh wait, she does!). Instead it's much better to collaborate with the Liberals to fight global warming, even if they let Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions increase by 30% in the last decade they were in power.

"This is an extraordinary expression of putting progress and principle ahead of politics as usual." Absolutely! This is so much better than offering the people of Central Nova a full-fledged choice about what party or candidate they should vote for!

And in response to NDP Leader Jack Layton’s refusal to enter into a similar deal, “I think it behoves Jack Layton to think about getting beyond the kind of traditional, ancestral, tribal hatreds that are part of partisan politics." Unless of course, you’re talking about the evil regressive Conservatives, you can hate them all you want! Not to mention that the NDs came in second in Central Nova, so their support would have been much more valuable.

And my personal favourite, "I see in Mr. Dion a true leader for this country." Which is why she will deny the people in Central Nova the opportunity of voting for his party.

There’s a long-standing tradition (though not always exercised) of not running a candidate against a newly-chosen party leader running in a by-election. That’s one thing. But this scheme denies tens of thousands of Canadians the opportunity to vote for the party of their choice in a general election. It’s an attack on democracy when two individuals can sit down and remove names from ballots, despite what local riding associations may want and feel. In my view, it’s morally repugnant.

Fortunately, I don’t think it’s going to prove a very wise decision for either leader. Mr. Dion has, in essence, told local Liberals in a riding that it doesn’t matter who they nominate or how hard they’re prepared to work, Dion will toss them overboard to support someone running for a different party. It shows a contempt for local volunteers and workers that I think will come back and haunt him. It’s one thing for a local campaign to decide in the final week of a campaign that, with no hope for victory, they should support someone who shares some of their values (like the Liberals did, once upon a time, for Joe Clark). It’s another thing for the national leader to sacrifice a riding weeks or months before an election. And Canadians might well wonder what other principles Mr. Dion is prepared to sacrifice in order to win?

As for May, her quotes show she doesn’t even need to be elected before engaging in Orwellian truth-speak. By making this kind of backroom deal, she makes a mockery of Green promises to do things differently and destroys any kind of image of the party as an honest broker working for Canadians’ best interests. She’s also taking a big personal gamble that the voters of Central Nova are going to reward her for this kind of manipulation, when they might instead rally around the native son under attack from an outsider. Finally, with her endorsement of Dion, there are probably a whole bunch of would-be Green canvassers wondering how to respond to voters who ask, ‘why should I vote for your party, when I can vote for a real Liberal?’ (except in Central Nova, of course!)

2006-12-03T01:35:00.000-07:00

The moral of the story?

'Whoever throws mud loses ground.'

2006-12-02T10:41:00.000-07:00

I'm Still With Ed

This morning, despite a blistering headache, I went out and cast my ballot in the final round of the PC leadership race. That ballot will count in, what I believe to be, the most important election I have cast a ballot for in almost a decade.

Ralph Klein achieved many remarkable things in his 14 years as our Premier and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, but the one that counts today is the unified party he forged and maintained that covered a broad spectrum of Alberta's (admittedly centre-right based) political spectrum. His Cabinet and Caucus contained a remarkable diversity of views from Stockwell Day to Gary Mar, from Lorne Taylor to Dave Hancock and or Victor Doerksen to Gene Zwozdesky. All were free, even encouraged, to express their views openly and frankly in forging a consensus upon which government policy was founded. And it's truly remarkable how few members ever deviated from that consensus, once it was made. For 14 years, while conservative parties were floundering federally or collapsing in our neighbouring provinces, Ralph Klein's leadership was a model of consensus and unity that I think few have understood, at least maybe until this past week.

My support, since June, for Ed Stelmach has been based on many foundations. His integrity, his openness, his common-sense approach to dealing with issues were all very attractive to me as was his record as 'Deep-Six backbencher' and later as a senior Cabinet Minister. But the most important feature to me was the way he talked, both at the beginning, and throughout, his campaign of the need to build a better consensus within our party and the need for our party to renew it's relationship with the people and voters of this Province. More than anything else, this constant feature of his campaign appealed to me and won my support and my vote, both last week and today.

This past week has been frankly, brutal to our Party. It has divided down faultlines even more defined (in my view) than in 1992. Back then, we were so far down in the polls that once our leader was chosen, party members knew they would have to work hard and fast and together if we were to regain the trust of the people of Alberta. This time, we don't have that luxury. For years, the opposition parties have done such a poor job of providing a realistic alternative to Albertans that we've coasted. But that will not last.

Now this week both Mr. Dinning and Dr. Morton have appealed to their bases and argued fiercely against some of the positions taken by the other. And while both may have also been sincere (and still be sincere) about saying how they will reach out to the other's supporters once the race is done; the question must be asked, how realistic are their chances of success? If recent history in BC, Ontario, Saskatchewan and, of course, with the federal conservative movement federally, is any example, such consensus proves difficult and usually only results from a period of time out of government. But the decisions we make in the next few years may well determine the course of Alberta's future for the rest of this century. And they are too important to be left to 'Premier Taft"!

So, if we, as a party, are to unite to face the rising challenge, let it be under a leader who has consistently shown that he knows what consensus-building is all about. Let us support a candidate who has offered a positive vision of a renewed party and province under his leadership, rather than attacking his opponents. Vote for a candidate who has united others who ran for the leadership last week into supporting that vision and his leadership. The man who is (and has always been in this contest, in my opinion) best fitted to fill the void left by Ralph Klein's departure and maintain the broad spectrum of support that he won throughout this province. That man is Ed Stelmach, who I fervently hope will be Premier-designate of Alberta in a few hours.

2006-09-17T16:50:00.000-06:00

Today’s Sunday Sermon is on how actions speak louder than words.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI, during a speech to some professors while visiting Germnay, quoted from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus who said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Now, I’m not going to leap to the pontiff’s defence or anything nor do I object to many of the comments which have come from Muslim secular and religious leaders which have strongly condemned the remarks. After all, one of the pesky side-effects of freedom of speech is that others are equally free to criticize or condemn some of the things you say.

But, being somewhat familiar with Byzantine history, I found the source of the quote very interesting. Manuel was one of the very last of the Byzantine emperors (the third-last if you want to keep score). At this time, the once-mighty empire had shrunk down to little more than the city of Constantinople itself (modern Istanbul) and the ‘emperor’ was actually a vassal of the Ottoman Sultan. So Manuel was not one of the ‘crusading’ emperors who led great armies against the Caliphs and Sultans of old. In fact, when Manuel led troops, it was often in the service of his overlord, the Sultan. The Sultan frequently demanded this service of Manuel and his father; partly to ensure they were obedient vassals, and partly to see if he could push them into rebellion in order to have the pretext for seizing their lands (especially, the strategically located Constantinople).

So when Manuel speaks about the evil and inhumanity of Islam being spread by the sword, he’s talking about events that he has personally witnessed. A number of his letters reveal his great sadness at the devastation being wrought by the Sultan’s army, which he was nominally a part of. So it’s a very interesting source that Pope Benedict XVI chose to use.

But enough of the ancient history, let’s now look at current events. Since the pontiff made his (possibly ill-chosen) remarks, what has happened? Well, an Italian nun along with her bodyguard and another hospital worker were shot in a hospital in Somalia. Since no one’s claimed responsibility, it’s impossible to know whether the two incidents were linked. But on Saturday, five churches came under fire from guns and firebombs in the West Bank and Gaza during protests by Palestinian Muslims. Two more churches (neither of them Catholic) were set on fire today in the West Bank.

So while I greatly respect the Islamic religion, I am forced to wonder whether Manuel II knew of what he spoke? And do I listen to the words of the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood when he says “Our relations with Christians should remain good, civilized and co-operative”, or do I instead look at the body of a murdered nun and the burned out churches in the land where Christ lived?

Don’t actions speak louder than words?

2006-09-11T09:02:00.000-06:00

September 11, 2001

Personally...

The night before, I had taken my mother to emergency and was up rather late, so I had slept in a bit. I had just turned on the TV to CNN and was watching a bunch of people pointing upward and SLAM, I saw the (second) plane hit the World Trade Center. At first, I’m sure like a lot of people, I wondered if I was watching the trailer for some movie or TNT production. I’m embarrassed to say how long it took (including a phone call from a friend) before it began to sink in that it was really happening. I also had to track down my Dad who had just visited New York, to make sure that he had actually come back as scheduled (fortunately, he had).

My Mom died the following week, so that her passing and the events of 9/11 have become forever linked/joined together in my mind. I can’t think of one event without the other and the pain I still feel for losing my Mom is heightened by the sorrow I still feel for the many thousands who lost their mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and other family in the four planes, the WTC and Pentagon. It’s very strange and not at all pleasant.

Historically...

Stepping back, as a sometime student of history, I felt at the time (and still feel today) that this was an epochal event that will in many ways define the 21^st Century. The only problem is, five years on, I still don’t know how. Driving through the USA a few weeks after 9/11 and it seemed that the country had been transformed. But subsequent visits have shown that most of those obvious signs are gone and the changes (if any) have occurred on a level more deep or subtle than is evident to the casual observer.

Five years is not enough to tell. It will likely take decades before historians decide whether the events of September 11, 2001, marked the decline and fall of the American empire, the rise of a new Muslim jihadist sect, or the failure/success of the ‘war on terrorism’. One thing I do not doubt. The conclusions that future historians draw from this period will, no doubt, surprise those of us who have lived it.

2006-08-09T06:56:00.000-06:00

“It is vital for middle-power nations such as Canada to pursue a fair-minded and balanced foreign policy because it preserves our ability to act as an appropriate intermediary, helping to make peace between enemies, rather than simply validating the positions held by any one party.”
Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham

Wow! I can just see Bill Graham trying to pursue that policy in 1939 when Hitler's panzers were sweeping across Poland. "Sorry, Mr. Chamberlain, but Canada isn't quite prepared to go to war with Germany because we feel we have to act an appropriate intermediary for peace rather than validating the positions held by any one party." In fact, I think someone in the Liberal Party had better scrounge up Mackenzie King's old Ouija Board and see if he's taking any calls, after making so many before he died.

Now, do I think Israel's response has been a bit over-the-top, particularly in it's air attacks on built-up urban areas (like Beirut)? The answer is probably 'yes'. And do I think that the Lebanese people that Hezbollah purports to represent have some legitimate grievances? The answer is again, yes. Because as easy as it would be to see things only in black and white, some shades of grey and other colours always inevitably creep in. After all, Hitler got as far as he did in the 1930s because a lot of people outside Germany agreed with his grievances against the post-WWI settlement.

But there comes a time when you have to get off that fence and take a stand for one side or the other. And when the choice lies between a modern democratic state (however imperfect some of its polices may be) and a group of thugs who are willing to kidnap and murder innocents to advance their goals (however commendable some of those goals may be); it should be an easy choice. And shame on Bill Graham for not making it!!

2006-07-05T10:50:00.000-06:00

A Belated Happy Fourth of July!!

Americans have long been good at creating things that go BANG, and nowhere is this talent put to better use than in 4th of July fireworks displays across the country! This year, I had the privilege of watching the display in Washington from the rooftop of the Canadian Embassy and here are a few photographic highlights!

I have many more photos from the trip, but while my internet connection is kinda sketchy, many will have to wait until I return home!!

2006-07-01T20:58:00.000-06:00

Happy Canada Day, eh

Washington, DC may seem to be a strange place to celebrate the birth of a nation that was created primarily as a deterrent to greedy eyes looking northward, but this morning, with the help of the City of Calgary, the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede and many other generous sponsors, the Canadian Embassy put on a Stampede Pancake Breakfast with a flair. In fact, there were only a few touches to remind me that I wasn’t in Calgary during Stampede Week.

Many thanks to all the volunteers who made it possible and my especial thanks to Barb and Murray Smith who got us invitations! A few shots from my day…

No they’re not coming to arrest me, but these RCMP Officers were kind enough to pose with me and my friends, Duncan and Allie as well as many other breakfasters. Mounties are great!!

Canada’s Ambassador to the US with Duncan, Allie and some strange guy who shows up in my pictures from time to time.

Barb and Murray Smith, our indispensable ‘native guides’!!

US Supreme Court Building

The backside of the Capitol with the Washington Monument visible to the left.

Some guy named George lives here...

2006-07-01T15:25:00.000-06:00

I Made It!

There was a moment in Edmonton, where I wondered if I was going to actually make it. After all, immediately after I blogged about the joys of leisurely packing, my dog went and injured herself and a faulty guage on my Jeep informed me that it had no oil left... So my leisurely day of packing turned into the usual day-before-leaving crisis management mode *sigh*... But that's not what endangered the trip. You see. there was this customs guard in Edmonton...

Guard: "Your passport and customs declaration."

I hand them over and a short inspection by the guard shows, "You haven't signed it." Obviously, I'm guilty as charged and now his job is to determine whether I'm a criminal bent on his country's destruction, or just really, really stupid... He hands the card back and a pen so I can sign it. I present them back feeling like I'm in the sixth grade again during a visit to the headmaster's office.

Guard: "What is the purpose of your trip to Washington?"

Q: "Ah vacation, er leisure..." I'm still feeling flustered. There is a long silence as the guard looks me over and I'm getting the feeling that he hardly regards a vacation as a sufficient reason to visit Washington, a city that hosts more than 20 million tourists a year. Then suddenly,

Guard: "Where are you staying?" I'm getting a little pissed now because the address is on the card I had given him.

Q: "With friends."

Guard: "What nationality are these 'friends' of yours?' You literally can here the sneer when he says the word friends.

Q: 'They're Canadian". I'm getting past pissed and am approaching active irritation...

Guard: 'They're Canadian and they live in Washington, DC?" He is incredulous, obviously imagining a major conspiracy that he's just uncovered.

Q: "Yes, that's correct," I let a little steel flow into my voice. "They work at the Canadian Embassy there."

Guard: "Oh." He obviously hadn't considered that possibility and another long silence stretches as he decides whether to pursue it, but finally decides against it. "When are you returning?"

Q: We're coming back on July 8th.

Guard: "WE? Who's we??" He demands. Obviously a number of replies spring into my mind, each more sarcastic than the last but, with difficulty, I smother all my natural impulses and respond with the unvarnished truth.

Q: "I'm travelling with two friends."

Guard: "Where are these friends of yours?" Clearly, I'm making this all up...

Q: "Over there." I point over my back to where Duncan and Allie had been undergoing their own interview. Actually, though I didn't realize it at the time, Duncan and Allie had long concluded their own interview and I was actually implicating another couple in my conspiracy to visit Washington on leisure... But with one more long look at me, the Guard stamps my passport and tells me I can go.

Fortunately, ever since I've arrived in the US, people have been very friendly and welcoming. I will have more on how I spent Canada Day at the Canadian embassy with pictures in my next post!

Welcome to the USA!!

2006-06-29T10:05:00.000-06:00

Packing

There are two kinds of packing: leisurely packing, and last-minute-oh-my-god-the-plane-is-leaving-in-2-hours packing. Obviously, I much prefer the former as it is less likely to trigger a migraine or take years off my life through the added stress. I’m also less likely to forget something truly vital, like prescription medications.

Today, I am leisurely packing. Since I am a Phillips, there are (as my step-mom says) rules. The first thing to do is to clear and vacuum the largest room in your home. Then, you assemble all the possible toys you will wish to play with on your trip. Things like the camera, binoculars, battery charger, the camcorder, the tripod for the camcorder, the laptop, the laptop’s accessories, games, a DVD player, a book of DVDs, perhaps a printer, you get the idea. Then you add books, at least 3 for each day of the vacation. Then come the toiletries, including insect repellent, sunscreen, and medications to treat everything from snake-bite to ulcers. Next you take the number of days on your trip, multiply it by the fact that you will likely change at least twice each day, and start adding clothes accordingly. And when making your clothing selections, don’t forget to account for every possible variation of weather known to man (we are experiencing climate change after all).

Now unless you’re planning on touring the continent with an entire Jeep’s worth of cargo space (which I’ve done), you’re now reluctantly forced to concede that the airline is not going to provide the second plane required to transport all of the stuff you’ve accumulated. So then you get to sit down and play a game of ‘lifeboat’. The advantage to this method is that you hardly ever forget anything remotely important. That’s not to say that during your trip, you won’t suddenly miss Article X, but there’s some small comfort in knowing that you didn’t forget it and it’s on your living room floor at home because you thought Article Y was more important to bring…

Anyhow, it’s now back to leisurely packing!

2006-06-29T08:04:00.000-06:00

Off to Washington, DC tomorrow!!!

In just about 24 hours, it’ll be ‘wheels up’ as I and two friends depart for Washington, DC. It will be my first trip back in almost 21 years (I was there for a few days as part of an exchange program in August of 1985). My most vivid memory from that trip was the incredible heat and my constant review of the weather in the last few weeks indicates that it’s gotten no cooler. How they survived in Lincoln’s day, I’ll never know. The other recollection I have from the trip was that three days was entirely too short to take it all in.

We haven’t got a whole lot planned yet. Pancake breakfast at the Canadian Embassy to celebrate Canada Day on July 1; travelling to Gettysburg to watch a re-enactment of ‘Pickett’s Charge’ on July 3; and cramming in as many fireworks displays as we can find on the 4^th! To my mind, that’s how a trip should be: a few pre-planned events to give it structure, but otherwise it’s great to wake up in the morning and wonder what you’re going to do today!! I just love that kind of spontaneity!

And Washington is a city that engages me on so many levels. The political animal in me revels in the fact that it’s the global centre of power-politics. And my historian and US Civil War buff will also find lots to see and do at the Smithsonian and the collection of various monuments and historic sites in and around Washington. It will also be great to see Barb and Murray Smith again and join them on their quest for great cheap food in Washington. Somehow, I think that when it’s all over, I’m going to think that seven days was also too short in the end…

And one other thing about being in the US, where they largely ignore Canada (except for the Alberta-fest that will be underway while we’re there), is I hope to go at least a week without hearing Dalton ‘I don’t like nuclear power’ McGuinty saying something stupid. As Blackadder says, “The eyes are open, the mouth moves, but Mr. Brain has long since departed…”. A week of blissful silence from Ontario’s premier isn’t too much to ask for, is it?

I don’t yet know what access I’ll have to the internet during the trip. But I’m hopeful that I will be able to add some entries and photos while I’m there!

Washington, here I come!

2006-06-28T22:02:00.000-06:00

A Child of the Modern Age

As a student of history, I confess to a fascination with past events, cultures and individuals. So my second favourite fantasy invention (after a Star Trek transporter) would be a time machine. There are so many places and past times that I would love to visit. I emphasize the ‘visit’ aspect. Sort of like a camping trip into the remote mountains where you’re going for the scenery and the ‘experience’ knowing the living conditions and food will be primitive and the only ‘luxuries’ (like soap and advil) are those you bring with you. In other words, the past may be fun to visit, but I’m so grateful to live in an era of indoor plumbing, electricity, refrigeration and computers…

I came to this conclusion while building a set of shelves for my study today. Despite being pre-fabricated so that a chimpanzee should be able to do it blindfolded, it took me five hours of sweating, swearing and labouring and one gash on each arm before the darn thing was assembled (and even now, the top shelf is backwards). Knowing that in almost any previous century my hovel would have been entirely furnished by what I could make with my own hands, I'm so very happy to be part of this great modern age of consumer extravagance.

The point is even more poignant because my reason for building this shelving unit was so that I could finally set up the air conditioning unit I bought over 2 years ago. So now I can sit in my perfectly air-conditioned room, blogging away, with instant access to the world’s largest information base over the internet, totally oblivious to the scorching heat outside!

Gods, but it’s good to be alive in the 21^st Century!!

2006-06-19T11:43:00.000-06:00

Are you ashamed to visit swimming pools because of your embarrassingly small penis?

Having recently switched ISPs, I am now becoming aware of just how much spam my former provider was blocking from arriving in my e-mailbox. From products promoting breast and penis enlargement to more esoteric products that will 'make your wife love your sperm more than you!' (Yuck!!) I am now being bombarded by at least 80 e-mails a day (I know that's a small amount but it is a fairly new address!) asking impertinent questions, offering to show me sexual acts that shouldn't even be possible, and generally irritating the heck out of me by competing with the few e-mails I want to read and respond to...

Now, I don't want to author the gazillionth post about the evils of spam. I recognize the consequences of an open information highway is there will be lots of traffic on there that I'd rather not see and if it's the price of having such an open, unregulated system, it's worth paying it.

But as a sometime communications professional, I keep asking myself 'does such spam work'? Yes, I realize that the audience is large, the cost so small as to be for all intents and purposes non-existent. But does anyone actually respond to an e-mail that asks: 'does your wife prefer your dog's penis to yours?' I could almost hope that the link contained in that e-mail would take the respondent to their local humane society's site or a list of qualified psychological practitioners in the respondent's area... but I am depressingly certain that it will take them to a site offering cheap generic viagra!

Now I can accept that there's a legitimate market out there for viagra, implants and maybe even 'Spermamax'. But doesn't advertising such products with such inane, insulting and often misleading questions defeat the purpose? Is there really someone out there who will be induced to try viagra as a means of giving poor Fido a break??!

As happens too often, I'm left with more questions than answers... but after a (too) long hiatus, QCF is back with a vengeance! BTW, my answer to the first question is that I tend to avoid swimming pools because of my large stomach along with my tendency to sink like a stone in water. Unfortunately, there’s no legitimate ‘wonder’ drug that will help with those problems.

2006-04-21T10:20:00.000-06:00

The Queen is Eighty Today!
---------------------------------------------------------------

May She Live Until She Looks It!!
God Save Her Majesty!

2006-03-31T00:55:00.000-07:00

I'm on Ralph's Team

Today is a very important day. Important enough for me to break my self-imposed silence for the past few months. Later this morning, I will pick up my friends and make the three-hour drive to Calgary to participate in this weekend’s provincial Progressive Conservative Annual General Meeting. I’ve attended eight or nine of these events, usually with great enthusiasm. But this year is different. I have a sick feeling in my stomach (and it’s not due to contemplating the enormous quantity of free alcohol I will be offered over the next couple of nights).

Tonight, delegates will be asked to vote on whether to engage in an early leadership review process. This is despite the fact that our current leader, Ralph Klein, has already stated his intention to step down 3 to 3.5 years into his current mandate and in fact promised to do so during the election campaign. But apparently that’s not good enough for some people. Some people think that Canada’s longest-serving Premier has served long enough and it’s time to hand him his hat and coat and ask him not to let the door hit his ass on the way out! And I am told that these people will constitute a sizable minority (or more) among tonight’s voting delegates.

I make no bones about being a Ralph Klein supporter. Although a federal Conservative since the mid-1980s, I was unimpressed with the provincial party until 1992. Then I bought a membership to vote for Ralph. I watched with amazement as he began to do exactly what he promised to do and I was fully converted and have worked hard (usually full-time) on every provincial election campaign from 1993 on. Metaphorically, and sometimes physically, I’ve been there when he achieved the ‘miracle on the prairies’ or when he promised not to ‘blink’ and when he welcomed us to ‘Ralph’s World’

Now I have neither the time nor inclination to write page after page outlining all the positive things Ralph has done for this province and his party. Suffice it to say that he did what many believed to be impossible and the Alberta of today hardly resembles the Alberta he received at the end of 1992. I’ll save the list of accomplishments for his eulogy, which I hope is a lot further off than some people think.

What I will say is this: In 1993, the PC Party should have gone the way of the Socreds, the UFA and the provincial Liberals and then swiftly faded from the Alberta political scene. That didn’t happen because (just) enough people in the 1993 election trusted Ralph to do what he said he was going to do and then backed him when he kept his word, even when doing so confounded the ‘experts’. There isn’t a PC MLA elected in 1993 (including Dr. Oberg) who doesn’t owe their subsequent career to Ralph and not a person who worked in that 1993 campaign that doesn’t know the truth of the role he played. For that reason alone, Ralph Klein deserves our Party's ringing endorsement tonight. But as Josef Stalin said, “Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs.”

And while I’m in a quoting mood, in 1909, Arthur Balfour, then leader of the British Conservative Party (and Prime Minister from 1902-06), said: “I have the greatest respect for the Conservative Party Conference, but I would no more consult it on a matter of high policy than I would my valet.” I’d like to think Conservatives have come a long way since then, but I guess I’ll find out tonight. Because if members of this party turn their backs on Ralph Klein, who has done so much for this party and province, they will do so with my utter contempt.

2006-01-23T02:22:00.000-07:00

Please, please vote today if you're Canadian!!

QCF returns from an extended hiatus on a very important day, election day for Canada's federal parliament. And notwithstanding Allie's post about the illegality of spoiling your ballot, it's very important for Canadians to participate in this most important and fundamental part of the life of our country - to choose the elected representatives who will govern this great country on our behalf.

Today, I will be voting for Laurie Hawn, the Conservative candidate in Edmonton-Centre. I'm doing this because:

After 12.5 years in office, the Liberals have grown arrogant and out-of-touch. It's not just the sponsorship affair, though that is a massive symptom of a larger disease. For two years, Paul Martin has governed Canada, but it's only in the last month that we've found that he favours an elected senate, a complete ban on handguns and wishes to remove the federal government's power to invoke the notwithstanding clause. But despite these attempts to grab the headlines, the reality is that I look at a Liberal party that offers no compelling reason for Canadians to give them another term in office except by demonizing the opposition. They've spent so much time portraying Stephen Harper as the George W. Bush of Canadian politics, that they've failed to offer me a positive vision of Canada's future except a nationalized child-care program and a leader for whom everything is a 'priority' so therefore nothing is.

On the other hand, while not above in throwing some mud himself, the reality is that Harper has, by and large, offered a large array of policies that reflect a party of ideas. Now I don't agree with all of those ideas. Some reek of expediency, others have not been fully worked out to be practical, and a few (in my opinion) are just dumb. But put together, they offer Canadians a mainstream, moderate alternative to the Liberals that Canadians have really lacked in more than a decade.

But more than that, I am trusting Stephen Harper for a quality that I've often disliked in him, his ambition. Harper wants very much to be Prime Minister, but not in the Joe Clark-John Turner-Kim Campbell (and dare I say it?)-Paul Martin mode. Harper wants to govern Canada for years and win re-election(s). This means not doing what mainstream Canadians don't want. It means no radical push to the right and doing nothing to dispel the very carefully crafted 'mainstream, moderate alternative to the Liberals' that has been so prudently created in the last year or two. Because Harper knows that if the Conservatives try to push to fast or hard on a variety of 'hot-button' issues with Canadians, the Conservative party will be pushed very rapidly from the pinnacle of power and will likely become a right-wing version of the NDP, never to be entrusted with power again.

I think Harper knows this. The real question is will his caucus know this too? And will Harper be able to manage the tribes of divergent viewpoints that make up any governing power. And there, I can only hope the answer is yes. It would be easier if Harper had a (thin) majority, but as much as I think he deserves it, I (unfortunately) think he's going to fall just short.

So here's my election morning seat prediction:
Conservatives: 149
Liberals: 71
Bloc: 61
NDP: 27

I will not be posting anything more today but will offer my post-election thoughts and predictions tomorrow. And again, don't forget to vote, no matter what party/candidate you're supporting!

2005-12-18T00:32:00.000-07:00

On Hiatus

Though I haven't actually left for Ontario yet, I'm realizing that the various posts I had started in the last few days will not be posted before I go. If I get a chance to post while I'm visiting the family, I will. Otherwise, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas or holiday season and will be back in the second week of 2006!

2005-12-13T17:34:00.000-07:00

Newsflash!!
Martin favours elected Senate

If I woke up from a coma and read that headline, I would know from that (and nothing else) that there's an election on. The only time Martin (or Chretien for that matter) bothers to speak up about Senate reform is in western Canada during an election. Strangely, however, Mr. Martin's support for an elected senate never seems to manifest into any action. But then I guess you can say that about about many/most of Mr. Martin's priorities...

2005-12-12T08:30:00.000-07:00

"Working families need care. They need care that is regulated, safe and secure and that's what we're building here. Don't give people $25 a week to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child-care spaces that work." Scott Reid, Communications advisor to Prime Minister Paul Martin. Source: Globe and Mail

Apparently, Stephen Harper is saddened by such comments while other Conservatives have expressed shock and outrage. May I suggest another approach? How about gratitude? If I was running the Conservative war-room (and admittedly there are many, many reasons why I should not be), I would have suggested the following response:

'We're very grateful to Mr. Reid and his contribution to the debate on child care in Canada. In a few short sentences, Mr. Reid has clearly outlined the Liberal party philosophy that big government works best and individual Canadians really can't be trusted to make intelligent decisions when it comes to raising their children. And there's no need to apologize for a rare flash of honesty, Mr. Reid. After all, you have brilliantly demonstrated the contempt a Liberal government feels for Canadian parents and why they feel child-care must be placed into a 'regulated, safe and secure' program run by government. We hope Canadian parents take you at your word and remember this contempt when they vote on January 23, 2006.'

After all, every once in a while, shouldn't we take the Liberals at their word? Just for the novelty, if nothing else…

2005-12-11T23:30:00.000-07:00

Getting in Under the Wire...

Well I can't complain about lack of things to blog about:

Such as Bill Clinton, preaching to the converted in Montreal on the impact of Climate Change and the need to implement Kyoto. I'd be more impressed if, when he was President, he could have convinced even one Democrat senator to vote to ratify after he signed the accord (the US Senate voted 95-0 to against Kyoto when Clinton was President) but that's OK because we can still blame George W. Bush instead.
I love this recent photo of Bill Clinton...

And I also can't complain that Paul Martin wasn't doing his bit to fight global warming by continuing to cool Canadian-US relations with his earnest lecture to the Bush administration on the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Considering the Kyoto-hating Bush administration has actually done a better job of limiting GHG emissions than the Kyoto-loving Liberal government of Canada, I can't help but sympathize with the Bush administration's decision to call Canadian Ambassador, Frank McKenna, on the carpet. I'd almost feel sorry for him; except the Canadian Embassy insists that Mr. McKenna asked for the meeting and that it was 'cordial'.

And then there's the endorsement of the NDP (particularly Vancouver-Centre candidate Svend Robinson), by Marc Emery, head of the BC Marijuana Party, who's facing extradition to the U.S. for selling pot over the Internet to U.S. citizens. Normally, I'm not sure if that kind of endorsement would be welcome, but Vancouver-Centre is an interesting riding. After all, they gave us Kim Campbell in 1988 and replaced her a few years later with current Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry (who saw the KKK burning crosses in Prince George something that both the media and Prince Georgers failed to notice). Mark Steyn has brilliantly characterized this as a race between "the incendiary promoter of bogus Klan scares, and Svend Robinson, the light-fingered gay." What a choice...

But the Laugh of the Week came when I stumbled across Anne McLellan's campaign office a few days ago. Now, as I know from experience, finding good space for an office that's accessible, affordable and located in the riding can be a challenge. But I can't help but break out in a serious case of the giggles when noting Anne's new office is right next door to a gay bath-house, and shares the same block with a gay video store, 2 gay bars, and a little shop called 'B&D Emporium' (trust me, if you don't know what 'B&D' stands for, you're probably happier remaining in ignorance). Since the space was the former corporate office for McDonalds, I can’t help but wonder if there’s some kind of weird metaphor for the Liberal party in all of this, but whenever I start to formulate it, I begin laughing again (I also can’t help but imagine the reaction I would have faced in proposing this space to any of the candidates I ever worked for…)

2005-12-08T11:57:00.000-07:00

The other reason for my silence…

A funny thing happened while I was making lunch on Monday. As I was rushing around doing three things at once, a pop-up box appeared on my computer to tell me that there were new updates available to be downloaded and installed. Now, normally when that happens, I sit down and read very carefully what Microsoft wants to do to me but I was ‘busy’ and in a moment of weakness (OK, insanity) I clicked the OK button… A few minutes after that, as I was passing my computer again, I saw that the updates had been downloaded and installed and my computer needed to be restarted. So, I restarted.

To make a painfully long story short, it turned out that Mr. Computer wouldn’t restart in anything but ‘safe mode’ and that anything I could do in ‘safe-mode’ (i.e. system restore, uninstalling recent programs/updates) wasn’t fixing the problem. So I eventually reinstalled Windows, found my drivers corrupted (which necessitated a lengthy search for a Mouse-port adapter for my USB mouse), re-established my connection to the internet, updated my software and video drivers, etc. etc. etc. This all took about 8 hours over two days (because late Monday afternoon, Mr. Migraine came a-calling) just to get me back to the same level I had been on Monday morning (when, BTW, I had run my weekly full-system virus scan and daily system Spyware scan).

I believe it was Nietzsche who said ‘that which does not kill us, makes us stronger’ which is a typically Teutonic way of admonishing one to learn from your mistakes. So, what did I learn?

Downloading an update without thoroughly checking it first is not unwise (as I had previously thought), it’s bad, BAD, BAD!!
While computers often save us time, increasing our productivity, they can also cost us time, leading us to spend many hours on something that’s completely unproductive.
Working on a computer for many hours without being to pause to surf the internet, check e-mail, news, etc. is a burdensome experience. That’s ‘working’, not playing Civ, Duncan...
Reinstalling my computer is a lengthy, frustrating process that can cause migraines.

So, is this a fancy long-winded excuse for not invoking the 'first' strike for not posting for three days? All, I can say is ‘Perhaps’. In other words, if strikes 2 and 3 come fairly quickly, then I probably will count this one too, if not, then I’ll probably forget about this one. Think of my 3 strike rule as part of the ‘Pirates’ Code’, they’re more like guidelines, anyway…

2005-12-08T10:30:00.000-07:00

Why I've been so quiet...

It’s been a difficult past few days for me watching this election. My attraction to the Conservatives is waning. You see, there’s this guy, Stephen Harper, and he’s been opening his mouth and issuing a policy each day. Now I know the theory behind this strategy. It keeps your guy in the headlines, it shows you’re a party with ideas, and it may even enhance your image as a government-in-waiting.

But...

It’s also the strategy the Conservatives/Alliance/Reform have used in the 2004, 2001, 1997 and 1993 elections (with a consistent unfortunate outcome); and also maybe keeping your ‘guy’ in the headlines and on the TV isn’t such a good idea when polling has consistently shown that he is the least-liked aspect of your party. But most of all, I really hate this strategy because the ideas that Mr. Harper has put forward have mostly fallen into three categories:

Completely irrelevant to me (e.g. Small Business and Child Care platforms);
Poorly thought out and incomplete (e.g. the public officials prosecuting department); and
Grossly opportunistic and stupid (the GST reduction).

Eventually, I will calm down enough to blog coherently on why I hate the GST thing so much but I’m afraid I’m still at the no, NO, NO, Arrgghhhhhhhh stage.

So it’s with great relief that today’s incredibly stupid policy release comes from the party I love to hate: “Martin says Liberals would ban handguns”

This is dumb on so many levels. After all, it’s not like handgun use isn’t already so restricted that it’s virtually impossible for a law-abiding citizen to acquire one legally. Moreover, it may have perhaps eluded the Liberals that the recent rash of street crimes being committed in Toronto and Vancouver are being done with guns that are already illegal. And I certainly don’t think the issue is that cops in Vancouver or Toronto are afraid to act when they see someone carrying a handgun because they think that person could produce a permit on demand…

No, this is purely a ‘let’s-enact-a-useless-law-that-will-make-us-feel-good’ response. It’s all about dealing perception rather than reality, a motherhood statement that will do nothing to deal with the real problem and might even attract some ‘law and order’ votes. In short, it’s the Liberals governing as usual.

The universe has rightened itself, the balance is restored, I can blog about the election again…

2005-12-04T16:41:00.000-07:00

Quote of The Day
"Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with." Steven Guilbeault, the director of the Greenpeace movement for Quebec. Source: Globe and Mail How convenient when you can blame every conceivable manifestation of the weather on a single phenonmenon...

However, I guess I should be grateful to Steven as he has now cleared up something that has long troubled me. After all, one reason I have had a hard time believing in all the warnings of global warming is that when I went to school, my social studies textbooks contained many very earnest warnings of the new Ice Age that was on it's way, shown by the trend of global temperature records. In fact, I remember doing a week-long project on the implications a new Ice Age would have on Alberta. Since the last Ice Age covered most of the province under layers of glacial ice, I didn't see many implications other than humans would have to go someplace else.
But now that 'global warning can mean colder' I understand it all and can forgive those 1970s textbook writers for indoctrinating me with their stories of a new Ice Age when they should have been indoctrinating me with 'Global Warming' instead (though I'm sure they're making up for it now)! And the beautiful thing is that if in the next 20 years, global temperatures begin to slide downward, we can still blame 'global warming'!! Unlike all the other 'scares-theories' of the past where we were all going to starve to death, or procreate ourselves to death, or run out of aluminium or zinc, 'global warming' will always be with us as long as we have weather!

From the above, you're forgiven for considering me a Climate Change sceptic. Now, it's not that I dispute the phenomenon itself. After all geological records show that at various times that the location where I live has been at times buried under many metres of glacial ice and at other times has been a steaming swamp (and I trust geologists far more than I trust many of those who've involved themselves with the 'science' -- read industry, of climate change). The scepticism enters when I consider at the time of both of those climatic extremes, Alberta (and the world for that matter) was entirely unoccupied by humans.

You see, the problem I have is the arrogant assumption that human activity is causing the latest variations in the global climate. Ask any serious medieval historian about the 'mini-Ice Age' and you will hear how a drop in temperatures in Europe affected everything from agriculture to social mobility in feudal Europe. In other words, we were seeing profound climate change at a time when the ultimate achievements of human industrial activity were the forge and the mill. Climate change did not just begin after the industrial revolution...

Moreover, having made the arrogant assumption that humans are responsible for climate change, they take it even further by insisting that we do it again by restoring the world to some convenient equilibrium. To me, this is like a doctor, who having observed his patient suffering from a high temperature for a few seconds, immerses that patient in ice-water to counter the symptoms without trying to understand the cause...

Now, I confess, I didn't pay much attention to the climate change conference that's wrapping up in Montreal, because a brief scan of the headlines has told me they're singing the same old songs about scaling back greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, how Kyoto is only the first step and more cuts will be needed, about carbon taxes, international cooperation and emissions trading, and all the blah, blah, blah that's going nowhere. Instead, we should be focussing on humanity's greatest strength, our ability to adapt.

Because, sooner or later, we're going to encounter a climate change phenomenon that we didn't cause, and won't be able to 'stop' with some reduction in human-produced greenhouse gasses (if we aren’t encountering it already). Instead, let's take the varying 'scary predications' of a two-degree rise in global temperatures over a 20 or 50 or 100-year span and see how we can adapt to them. Surely some of the global computing and brain power currently dedicated to 'proving' a rise in temperatures and humanity's responsibility for said rise, could be used to provide realistic assessments about the impact of said rises and how we can mitigate them.

In other words, how will global warming change our agricultural practices (e.g. should we be looking at irrigation strategies, different crops?)? What actions can we take to preserve our water supply? What will be the impact of rising (or shrinking) sea levels on our coastal habitats (which includes Hudson’s Bay and Cape Breton Island as well as Halifax and Vancouver)? What are the implications for Climate Change on Hydro Power? Where can we adapt? What will we have to give up? And, even, where can we gain? There are thousands of such questions.

So, if government (at all levels) is serious about contingency planning, than I feel those are the climate change questions we need to address. Let’s face it, Canada’s emissions are small as a percentage of human activity and very minute as a fraction of all greenhouse gas emissions. Whether we commit economic suicide to meet arbitrary reduction targets isn’t going to make a damn bit difference, especially as the three largest emission producers (USA, China and India, who together account for over half of human GHG emissions) show no signs of ever getting their act together. And while it is emotionally satisfying for some march in protest and blame this (along with everything else) on George W. Bush, I prefer a more positive action.

Canada has an opportunity to become a Climate Change leader, not by jumping on the Kyoto bandwagon, but because we have the intellectual, financial, industrial, and technological capabilities to raise and answer the issues of climate change adaptation. By pioneering this subject and sharing our knowledge, Canada could make a far more useful contribution to the field of humanity and climate change than was asked of us by Kyoto…

2005-12-01T00:01:00.000-07:00

Quote of the Day
"It's time to turn the page on the sponsorship issue. It's been put out there, it's been solved. The Liberal party has taken a beating, now it's time to move on." Marc Garneau, proving his astronomical achievements are matched by an astronomical arrogance. Source: CP

I'm sorry, but I'm now really (really) sick of the phrase, 'it's time to move on', so perhaps I'm overreacting a tad when I shout... WHAT THE *BLEEP* DO YOU MEAN, IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON??!!

Excuse me, BUT didn't Paul Martin plead with us on national TV last spring not to rush into any judgements until Justice Gomery had his say? Have we had an election since then? Has not former Prime Minister Chretien just now legally challenged Gomery's findings to date? And when did it get 'solved'? Are we not still, in fact, waiting for Gomery's recommendation on how to 'solve' the matter? And, in case you missed me asking it the first time, have Canadian voters had ANY opportunity to examine fully the charges and testimony in detail and pass their own judgement on Adscam in an election?

And now, we're supposed to 'move on' because the Liberal party (poor thing!) has 'taken a beating'? Well, with arrogance like that, Garneau is a natural as a Liberal, but I have to hope the good people of Vaudreuil-Soulanges decide that he should 'move on' outside the House of Commons. When I first saw my Duncan's prediction of 65 Bloc seats in Quebec, I thought he was considerably overestimating their chances (heck, I thought my own estimate of 60 to be on the very high side!). Now I'm not so sure...

2005-11-30T21:58:00.000-07:00

I had a fairly long post about day 2 of the election campaign that somehow got fried while I was spell-checking (ah the wonders of technonogy). So you'll have to make do with this much shorter post on a different topic.

While I agree reforms to our 'Justice' system are needed, creating an office to prosecute public officials is not what I have in mind...

Webster's killer freed, victim's family urged to 'move on'

I don't know what disgusts me more, the fact that two years behind bars can possibly be considered a just sentence for beating a man to death, or the spectacle of the judge who freed him lecturing the victim's family on the 'merits' of forgiveness. I realize that the judge was acting in accordance with the law when he took this action and I know nothing more of the judge involved. Perhaps it's possible that he has lost a close friend or family member to a senseless act of violence. Perhaps he has even been able to look the killer in the eye and forgive him/her, BUT EVEN IF HE HAS, he still has no right to tell the victim's family that it's time to "move on and forgive". That's an insult of the highest order and an unforgivable abuse of the authority which has been vested in him.

Less than five years after his death, Aaron Webster is apparently all but forgotten since according to Judge Romilly, "The sole preoccupation at this stage should be to help the youth, who committed a terrible offence, while still a youth." Pfagh!!!

How have we come to this???

2005-11-30T00:01:00.000-07:00

Quote of the Day

"I accept Mr. Grewal's decision, and I understand his reasons. On behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, I would like to thank Mr. Grewal for his years of service to the people of Newton-North Delta. I wish Mr. Grewal all the best in his future endeavours." Stephen Harper's reaction to MP Gurmant Grewal's decision not to run for re-election. Source: Globe and Mail

It's almost like the Rabbi's prayer for the Tsar: 'May God bless and keep Mr. Grewal... far away from us!!' Mr. Grewal, as you'll recall, was the MP who had audio tapes (which may or may not have been altered) showing that the Liberals may or may not have been offering him and his wife future patronage appointments if they crossed to the Liberals, prior to a non-confidence vote this spring (you know the one that wasn't held until after Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to be given a shiny new cabinet post?). Afterwards, Mr. Grewal decided to take some stress leave. I notice his wife, Nina, is still running in her seat though...

2005-11-29T23:04:00.000-07:00

Tories reopen same-sex marriage debate

That didn't take long. I was hoping for at least a few days to hammer my thoughts out on this issue before it made headlines.

What I do think now is this is what's going to be remembered as Stephen Harper's 'big gamble' of the campaign. If he succeeds, he'll be hailed as a political genius (see reasons below) and if he fails, he'll be accused of destroying the Conservative movement for years. As big as the stakes are, let's look at it dispassionately for a moment. My own reading of the polls on this issue in recent years is that 40% of Canadians are very open to, and supportive of, gay marriage, about 40% are generally opposed to it, and the other 20% waffle one way or the other depending on how the question's phrased, who's been commenting in the media on it, etc. So I understand Mr. Harper's sensing an opportunity here and that opportunity is magnified by the fact that all the other parties are on the other side of the fence from the Conservatives on this.

In 1988, Brian Mulroney made used of united opposition to free trade and won a majority government. In 1992, Preston Manning's Reform party broke away from the rest of the Canadian political establishment and campaigned openly against the Charlottetown Accord and the resulting victory for the 'No' side established the Reform Party as a serious political force in this country. I'm betting that Stephen Harper (who's no fool, whatever else he is) remembers those events very clearly and is betting that he can follow in those footsteps.

But it is a gamble (just as it was in '88 and '92). Still looking at it dispassionately, is this really an issue that's a vote-getter? Are Sikhs, Muslims and others who've voted Liberal for years suddenly going to vote for Mr. Harper and his party based on this one issue? Even if he's also chanting 'Gomery, Gomery, Gomery' all day? After all, even when Ontario MP, Pat O'Brien, left the Liberal caucus over the issue last June, he still chose to sit as an independent rather than join the Conservatives... In other words, Liberals abstaining because of this issue may not be enough to lift Mr. Harper into the 35%+ range of the popular vote that he'll need to form (even a minority) government.

But if my head's telling me that this is deep (though risky) strategy, my gut's churning... Why? Well for one thing, while the electorate, as a whole, may be sitting at 40/40/20 on gay marriage, if you look at the under-30s, it changes diametrically to something like 75/10/15. In other words, there's a profound generational shift in thinking on it's way and opposition to gay marriage may soon look as dated as opposition to a woman's right to choose (or vote) or to racial segregation or even slavery, which have all been defended by conservatives of one form or another in the last couple of centuries... In other words, the Conservative Party, to gain a temporary tactical advantage in one or two elections, may be throwing away an opportunity (perhaps it’s last opportunity?) to connect with the voters of tomorrow...

So which is right, head or gut? I wish I knew. All I can say for certain is I'm beginning to think that beneath his bland, policy-wonk exterior, Mr. Harper has the heart and soul of a riverboat gambler. It's not necessarily a bad trait, sometimes even an essential one in a strong leader; and I admit that I used to respect Mr. Mulroney's determination to 'roll the dice' even when I didn't agree with some of the stakes or games he was playing in. And, after all, it was Julius Caesar, crossing the Rubicon who said "Let the dice fly high!" I guess only time will tell if the little Han Solo voice in my head saying "I have a bad feeling about this...' is right or not.

One last thing, I think Égale Canada and other gay rights groups will be making a BIG error if they think that because of this summer's vote in Parliament that the matter is closed and 'it's time to move on'. Because, in my humble opinion, nothing doomed the Charlottetown Accord more than the oft-expressed consensus in the media and political establishments that Canadians had to accept the deal or face ruin. And nothing is more apt to enrage/motivate a Canadian voter than to tell them that the decision's already been made and how silly or stupid they are not to recognize it and ‘move on’.

2005-11-29T20:30:00.000-07:00

That was Fast!

On the same day the Parliament was officially dissolved and an election date was officially set for January 23, 2006, I received my very first piece of campaign literature from the Conservative candidate in my riding, Laurie Hawn.

Mr. Hawn is, of course, itching for a rematch since he ran a close second to Anne McLellan in 2004, being the latest in a line of Reform, Alliance and Conservative candidates who have made Ms. McLellan's hold on her seat a very shaky one. Known by some as 'Landslide Annie', Ms. McLellan's 721 vote margin of victory, in 2004 is actually an impressive gain on her margin of 12 votes (after a judicial recount) in her first election in 1993. That slim margin, plus Ms. McLellan's profile as Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, means my riding will certainly attract more media attention from down east than any other riding in Alberta. Oh, joy...

But getting back to Mr. Hawn again, receiving a drop on the first day of campaigning speaks of organization, determination, and at least one really committed volunteer (especially since today is practically the first 'wintry' day we've had so far this season). I mean I remember when I used to be that committed and in every case, it was because the candidate had brought it out in me. So, maybe it will be worth visiting Mr. Hawn's campaign office in the next few days or so...

What's also ironic is that I also received a drop in my box last week from Anne McLellan. The difference that's worth mentioning, of course, is while Mr. Hawn's drop of today was partisan literature paid for and produced by his party, Ms. McLellan's drop, delivered days before an election call, was funded through her parlimentary budget, paid for by the taxpayer. And while Anne's drop scrupulously obeyed the rules of non-partisanship, it also included 2 pages of electoral information, including the tidbits about the narrow margin of Ms. McLellan's victory in 1993... The rest of the drop was a 2006 calendar filled with many inspring pictures of Anne with schoolchildren, Anne with a senior, Anne with community volunters, with police officers, with firefighters, with residents of a homeless shelter, etc. etc.

What I did find very interesting, is that while the November photo showed Canadian veterans at a local Remembrance Day ceremony, it was one of only two calendar photos not to include Ms. McLellan (the other was of a local singing group to which Ms McLellan apparently does not belong). I am left wondering why... Is it because there are no photos of Anne with veterans (something I find hard to believe), or is it because Anne so honours our vets that she's giving them a precious photo without her (though I notice the RCMP and firefighters were not so treated)? Or are there other motives? Because I have a nasty and suspicious mind (one of the reasons, no doubt, I'm drawn to politics), I do feel compelled to note that Mr. Hawn is also Lt. Colonel Hawn (ret.) of the Royal Canadian Air Force, with which he served for 30 years. Maybe, just maybe, there are no votes to be gained in an 'Anne with veterans' photo... Nah, surely even the Liberals aren't so cynical... are they?

Anyway, this is just the first round, the preliminary skirmish, in what is likely to be one of the hardest-fought races in Canada. Should be fun to have a ring-side seat to it!!

The 2006 Race In Edmonton Centre, A Tale of Two Drops...

2005-11-29T00:01:00.000-07:00

Quote of the Day

"They decided that forcing an election was more important than giving middle-income Canadians the full benefit of our tax cuts. Well let me tell them that they can explain themselves to Canadians, because as Liberals we will go into every riding in this land, and we will say to the people of our country, you have a real stake in this election." Paul Martin to his caucus after the non-confidence vote of November 28, 2005... source: Globe and Mail

Ah yes, let's start the campaign by rewriting history (a sound Liberal tactic). Let's ignore the fact that Mr. Martin has been Prime Minister for almost two years and in that time has brought down at least two budgets and two economic updates before this month's promise of tax cuts. And that promise just happened to be delivered one day after the three opposition leaders agreed to bring down Mr. Martin's government (and less than three weeks after his own Finance Minister had said that any changes to taxation rates would have to wait until next February's budget). Let's forget the fact that he had two years left to run on his first mandate and that 17 months passed in his second before he could 'find the time' to promise these middle-income tax cuts.

I'm left wondering if the Prime Minister of Canada thinks I'm stupid or I merely have serious memory problems. I sure hope that Anne McLellan tries that line on me when she knocks on my door, it will be a fun time!

Have to give the Godfather credit for one thing, the last part of that quote is the unvarnished truth...

2005-11-28T20:14:00.000-07:00

This is probably going to be a rare 'political' non-election post, but I just want to say 'thank you very much' to the voters of PEI

Electoral reform rejected in PEI

Everyone loves the Winston Churchill quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government ever invented, save for all the others that have been tried from time to time". Well, I feel that way about our 'first-past-the-post' (fptp) system. It's not without its flaws and I know it can distort the voice of the voters (I was one of the almost 2 million Canadians who voted PC federally in 1993 to only get 2 MPs out of the deal), but I do find it superior to proportional representation (or PR for short), for two reasons...

I like the 'connection' between people and their elected representatives offered by fptp. I know that even under a modified PR system there would continue to be constituency MPs/MLAs (reps) directly elected as before. However, those reps would have peers sitting in the House, simply because they were at the top of a list prepared by their party's leadership. The party list reps don't ever have to pick up their phone and talk to constituents, the only calls they have to take are their leader's. And taking accountability away from reps is not the way to go, otherwise we could just hand it all over to un-elected Judges (but that’s another post!)
My other concerns are more pragmatic. PR tends to tends give disproportionate influence to smaller parties who play the kingmaker role, it dilutes a party's policy because those policies get compromised in order to survive, in short it creates a form of government like the one we've endured for 17 months, except that the short-term, 'survive 'til Thursday evening' viewpoint lasts for years. There's no certainty for long range planning if a coalition partner can pull out and leave you high and dry. Sometimes, the really important decisions are also controversial and need time to be proven effective. These decisions almost never happen under a PR system. Do you think that Klein could have accomplished his 1993 reforms, or Mulroney got free trade through (or Douglas got medicare, for that matter) under a PR system?

It's no coincidence to my mind that the oldest continuously functioning stable democracies in the world (the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia) all employ a ftpt system. Yes, it has its flaws but if you want to looked at flawed PR systems in action, you only have to look at Germany taking months to form a government, or the imminent collapse of the government in Israel, and that's just this fall. Or you could look at the New Zealand experience...

Also, one other note to the 'Yes' side supporters, I think it's really bad form to be still complaining about the 60% threshold required for a change after more than 60% of PEI voters cast their ballots against changing to PR...

2005-11-28T10:53:00.000-07:00

Liberal Government Falls

In other words, 171 MPs would seem to be backing the 'organized crime' theory... I wonder if the GG will exercise her prerogative and ask Stephen Harper if he could form a government... wouldn't it be cool if it happened?...

"In this weak and piping time of peace..." Shakespeare's Richard III laments a lack of proper employment (i.e. violence and mayhem). Well, you might be forgiven for thinking that the 17 months since our last general election have been anything but peaceful, but I'll bet you dollars to donuts it's likely we'll soon look back with longing at those 'quiet' months once the real mudslinging begins.

Now new characters will appear to frighten us. Terrible, deformed, maniacal monsters come to destroy our country and bearing about as much resemblance to reality as Shakespeare's Richard III bore to the actual king. But, thanks to the propaganda wings of Canada's political parties we'll soon be seeing, hearing and reading about:

'The Godfather', a.k.a. Mr. Dithers, a.k.a "Pleading' Paul Martin... who has schemed for years to finally gain control of the national political syndicate only to find that it might have been doing something illegal (like stealing taxpayers' money). Who has managed the feat of simultaneously apologizing for said action, setting up an enquiry into it and threatening to sue anyone who doesn't spout the party line... Claims a number of priorities, but has shown he will promise or do anything to hang on to power.
'Mad Jack' Layton dreaming his dreams of a carbon-free Canada, where we can all bicycle to our (unionized) jobs singing 'Solidarity Forever' and will learn to do without pesky things like cars, SUVs, an economy, or Alberta.
'Gorgeous' Gilles Duceppe, best known outside Québecfor his failed attempt to make hairnets fashionable for men. His fondest dream, to replace a semi-socialistic Dominion of Canada with a semi-socialistic Republic of Québec.

And of course the 2005-06 political 'epic' would be incomplete without:

'Scary' Stephen Harper, a man so terrifying... he's well, bland. A man who spends every waking hour plotting the destruction of medicare and earnestly seeking to put women back into the kitchen (perpetually pregnant) and gays into prison, where he thinks they belong.

Of course, the real question is whether Canadians will take the time and effort to penetrate these caricatures and find, for instance, that Stephen Harper's positions on virtually everything from gay marriage to medicare is vitually the same as Martin's position on those subjects a few years ago; or that the media while gleefully exposing every gaffe made by a Conservative candidate on say, abortion, will likely stay silent about similar gaffes from Liberal candidates...

Personally, I think it equally likely that Canadians will dive under the covers with several gallons of rum-laced eggnog. We'll also be lucky if 6 out of 10 of them get out from under the covers long enough to vote on election day... But, you never know, Canadian voters are an odd bunch and they may yet take time off from their shopping expeditions, family quarrels, digestive upsets and other traditional fun-filled holiday activities to give this election the attention it deserves.

Stranger things have happened...

2005-11-27T22:05:00.000-07:00

Oh yes, in other news, I'm thinking the Liberals are also expecting to form another minority government after the election. That would explain the latest offering from my favorite political rat, "Stronach calls for fixed election dates".

OK, maybe I'm overly cynical and this really isn't an attempt to give Mr. Martin a four year term, whether or not Canadians elect enough Liberal MPs to ensure this. On the other hand, it seems par for the course...

2005-11-27T19:21:00.000-07:00

As enjoyable and cathartic experience as bashing the Conservatives has been over the past few days, it's time to return to the even more enjoyable (and usual) practice of bashing the Liberals...

There's an often-told tale of an incident that occurred during a campaign stop made by Sir John A. MacDonald (the Canadian politician I'd like most to meet in the afterlife). As was his custom, Sir John had indulged heavily in a liquid lunch before his afternoon speech. However, a lengthy ride in a badly-sprung carriage left the distinguished gentleman feeling a bit queasy. And, after making his way up the stairs to the speaking platform (an unkind observer might have said he staggered somewhat), Canada's Prime Minister completely lost control and vomited his luncheon up in full view of the rather stunned crowd. Drawing himself up, he looked the now-silent crowd in the eye and said loudly, "And that's what I think of the opposition!" I can't help but contrast this with our current Prime Minister's reaction to the opposition, which is to call his lawyer...

In a collection of pathetic pre-election headlines, "Liberals send lawyer's letter to Harper over organized crime jab" deserves special recognition. I particularly liked the line: "The legal threat indicates the Liberals will punch back if they feel their opponents make unfair use of the sponsorship scandal in the coming election campaign." I mean, gosh, wouldn't it be unfair if the opposition were to imply that my government handing over millions of taxpayer dollars in a kickback scheme was... well like a crime!

Now compare and contrast that article with: "Liberals will face problems head on, be straight: Martin" and a disturbing picture arises. 'You can trust Big Brother, the Dear Leader knows what's best for Canadians...' and then sotto-voice 'and we have lawyers ready to go after the opposition the moment they say anything unfair.' I have expressed reservations about the current opposition's apparent strategy to campaign on 'Gomery' all the time every day on every channel, but, on the other hand, if the Liberal response is going to be this arrogant and contemptuous of public intelligence it just might work...

But, in the meantime, can someone please tell our thin-skinned Prime Minister about the fate of Al Gore, the last politician who tried to sue his way to victory? On the other hand, don't. I'd relish the chance to see Mr. Martin out of office with a scruffy beard...

2005-11-26T23:13:00.000-07:00

"Tories hope Gomery fallout will help them in Quebec"

And the laughs just keep on coming...

Seriously, one doesn't expect a political party to acknowledge failure before the election even starts. But this reminds me of when Nancy MacBeth proclaimed she could still win a majority government in Alberta a couple of days before the Liberals lost half their seats (including MacBeth's) in the 2001 election finishing with a grand total of seven out of 83 seats.

Nevertheless, Josee Verner seems determined to give Ms. MacBeth a run for her money for political optimism. Not that the Conservatives could hope for as many as seven seats in Québec. Now it is true that the Conservatives could make some 'inroads' in Québec this election. After all, when you're virtually at rock-bottom, there's nowhere to go but up... So how many distant second-place finishes would be defined as a Conservative success anyway? One? Two? As many as six?

And of course I can't miss noting "Verner denied the opposition had chosen unwisely in unleashing an election." Oh no, of course not; wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to make those 'inroads' in Québec...

Yep. "It's time to make another gargantuan effort to move Field Marshall Haig's drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin," (Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder Goes Forth BBC TV).

2005-11-25T16:04:00.000-07:00

"Bono expresses disappointment in PM"

Well, I know how he feels...
and so, I imagine, do many Canadians. I remember a time listening to the then Prime Minister butcher both official languages and watching two right wing parties quarrel with all the sophistication of eight-year-olds in the playground. And I remember wistfully looking at our well-respected, world-renowned Finance Minister who achieved the feat of balancing the federal budget for the first time in decades. I even remember thinking that Paul Martin might actually inspire me to vote Liberal for the first time in my life! And then he became Prime Minister and soon thereafter, like Bono, I was 'crushed'...

Now I must confess to an aversion to celebrity endorsements in politics to begin with. It's not that I want to exclude anyone, let alone celebrities from participating in the political process. If a celebrity wants to work on a campaign or donate or *gasp* vote, then by all means he or she should do with my grateful thanks. But it does stick in my craw to see someone, who can instantly command media attention because of their success in another field, stand in front of a microphone and tell their fellow Canadians what the should/shouldn't support or do. I'm sorry, but if you feel that strongly about it, run for office yourself! Of course, in Bono's case, he'd have to take the intermediary step of becoming a citizen first...

But my repugnance of seeing Bono lecturing my fellow Canadians from a press conference on Parliament Hill is tempered by the remembrance that Paul Martin has brought this on himself (and us) when he sought out and gained Bono's endorsement in the first place. And my political funny-bone is once again tickled by the thought of many Liberals wandering around muttering 'I told you so' under their breaths.

I strongly suspect that the Liberals will now rush to release a plan to double foreign aid spending with most of the heavy lifting to be accomplished 8-10 years down the road. I only wonder if Bono will fall for it, again?

2005-11-25T07:36:00.000-07:00

"Tories shrug 'that's Ralph' as Klein predicts another Liberal minority"

On Monday, I made some gloomy predictions about the federal Conservative Party's chances in the upcoming general election. Not long afterwards, Premier Klein made some of the same observations. While I would love to expound some wonderful fantasy that the Premier is an avid reader of my new blog, I'm forced by my natural integrity (and modesty) to confess that it's a simple coincidence caused by us both sharing a characteristic that's rather important in politics: we can both count (now, what 'skills' some of the people around Stephen Harper bring to the table is another question).

Over the years, I have often found that the reaction to some of Premier Klein's comments are more interesting than the comments themselves. And sure enough, out rush the federal conservatives with the usual reactions of shock, indignation and amused condescension. 'That's Ralph' they say and 'he's a character'. Well, here's a thought: WHY DON'T YOU LISTEN TO HIM??!!!

Ralph Klein is the most successful conservative in Canada. In the 25 years since he entered public life, he's not lost an election, not one!! That's three elections as mayor, one as a PC MLA, a cut-throat leadership contest, and four provincial general elections as leader of his party. There isn't another conservative alive in Canada with that kind of winning record. Heck, last year he even won an election with the vaguest platform in Canadian politics since Kim Campbell scrawled hers out on some napkins partway through the 1993 federal election. And yes, I'm aware of the role played by Rod Love in Klein's political success, but let's face it, Ralph Klein's done better without Rod Love than Love's done without Klein...

As any political junkie knows, one of the biggest advantages a government usually enjoys in Canadian politics is the ability to control the timing of an election. But now, for the first time in 25 years, the opposition gets to pull the trigger. Too bad they didn't think to line up their ducks first.

So, onward march the Conservatives showing the most misguided optimism since Field Marshall Haig, and no doubt they'll be shocked when the smoke clears and they find they got their butts handed to them (just like Field Marshall Haig); and at that point some of them will even try to blame Premier Klein for trying to warn them. But the reason the Liberals will be back in power after the next election is because somehow the Conservatives remain more disconnected from the electorate than a Liberal Party that stole our money.

And that's a damn shame...

2005-11-24T21:31:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I received inspiration in the mail for a wonderful post for today, but in light of today's news out of Afghanistan, I've chosen to shelve it for a few days. Instead, I offer my condolences and sympathies to the family and friends of Private Braun Scott Woodfield, who died doing his duty to his country. My thoughts are also with Sgt. Tony Nelson McIver, Cpl. James Edward McDonald, Cpl. Shane Dean Jones, and Pte. Paul Shavo who were injured in the same incident. I wish them a swift recovery.

Indeed, it's important to remember that every day, tens of thousands of out fellow Canadians don their uniforms to serve their country and its ideals, sometimes in almost unimaginable circumstances. The many years of neglect and decay that our armed forces have suffered is not the fault of a single government, or even of a single political party. It's something we all need to take responsibility for, and act to correct at a time when our national politicians will (or should) be listening very closely to us.

Because one day, I would like to wholeheartedly agree with the Defence Department spokesman who said today that our troops were "brave, well-led, well-equipped and fully prepared for their mission." I'd really like not to have to roll my eyes at the last two adjectives...

2005-11-23T14:40:00.000-07:00

My friend, Duncan sent me this link "If at first you don't succeed, fire and fire again" last night. The article led me to draw a few observations:

As I suspected, Mr. Martin did regard the firing of M. Pelletier as "one of the few pleasures he's enjoyed in... being PM", so much so that he wants to do it again.
Apparently, the Justice Minister agrees with the court decision as the current firing process appears to meet the base requirements outlined by that decision.
This does not bode well for the government in the civil case M. Pelletier has brought forward, which could cost taxpayers at least $3 million if the court finds in favour of M. Pelletier...
I wonder what M. Pelletier's response will be (if any) to this new warning letter?
I also wonder what disciplinary action (if any) former Transport Minister (and current Government House Leader) Valeri will face for not following proper procedures?

On the other hand, at least the government now knows the procedure of how to fire someone...

2005-11-22T09:04:00.000-07:00

Few headlines could cause me the peculiar combination of dread and nausea that this one from the online Globe and Mail did this morning...

Liberals hatch plan to snag more Quebec voters

Oh good, that's just what we need...

More later.

2005-11-21T21:37:00.000-07:00

And now for our regularly scheduled Monday post…

“You either have the confidence of the House or you do not have the confidence of the House, and there's no grey zone,” said Mr. Martin a few days ago on the subject of election timing. Well, it certainly looks like we’re going to see the latter within the next week or so, thus unleashing the ‘dreaded’ Christmas election upon Canadians.

A ‘Christmas election’ does not fill me with joy, though I don’t dread it for most of the reasons being reported. For one thing, it won’t be me out there door-knocking in the snow (although we have hardly seen any snow here in Edmonton yet, and it’s already Nov.21! Hmmm, reminds me to post my thoughts on global warming soon). For another, since it looks like I’ll be visiting Ontario over Christmas, it will give me a rare opportunity to see (at least) the election from a non-Alberta perspective (and also determine if there’s an ‘Ontario perspective’ that’s different from a ‘national media perspective’). And finally, because no matter how many Liberals and Conservatives over the next two months are going to be saying (and saying, and saying…) that their party needs a strong mandate (i.e. a majority government) from Canadians to get things done, my fearless election prediction is that the next Parliament isn’t going to look a whole lot different from the last one. In other words, it’s not that I dread an election now, it’s that I don’t see much point to one.

Let’s look at it from the Conservatives’ point of view. As I understand Conservative thinking (which is not an oxymoron!), is that if they say ‘Gomery’ loud enough, often enough during the campaign, there will be a groundswell movement to ‘throw the bastards out’. The problem is that so far, this particular groundswell has only been seen in the West and in Québec. In the West, there simply aren’t enough bastards left to throw out that will make all that much difference, and in some ridings (like Vancouver-Centre) the beneficiary is much more likely to be the NDP (how I loathe the thought of Svend Robinson back in the House again) than the Conservatives. And it takes some real Technicolor dreaming to envision Conservative MP’s from Québec in the near future… So that leaves Ontario.

But to produce a majority, the Conservatives will have to win (by my calculation) 75-80 seats in Ontario, which is a big swing and big swings like that are not just usually produced by ‘throw the bastards out’ alone. There has be a strong element of ‘throw the bastards in’ as well, and if that’s what Ontario is thinking, they’re hiding it very well! Of course, a smaller swing in Ontario might produce a Conservative minority government. Now in the last campaign, that was a realistic and even acceptable goal as the first Conservative government in over a decade could at last demonstrate to the country that Conservatives aren’t ‘scary’. But this time, that goal is much less satisfactory. Because in the limited lifetime offered by a minority government, either Harper will have to something fairly big to distinguish himself from the current government (which will immediately be translated as ‘scary’ by the Toronto Star, the CBC et.al. and likely precipitate another election). The other option is to govern much as Paul Martin has, making daily deals to survive, announcing long-term changes to taxation/spending that don’t have to fulfilled, not rocking the boat, etc. The problem with that (apart from being dull as dirt and about as heartening to the conservative ‘base’) will come during the next election where Mr. Harper’s ‘non-scary’ ‘liberal-lite’ government will be then up against the genuine article, which will almost certainly be revitalized and under new leadership and I’m not optimistic about that contest.

The problem with all this analysis is that I really don’t see all that much to do about it. I don’t think that changing leaders is the answer and not because I have any attachment to Mr. Harper – I don’t, but because I don’t see anyone out there who can do a whole lot better.

So, to come full circle, now you know the source of my dissatisfaction with this election, I don’t really see how it helps us (by us I mean conservatives as well as Conservatives) and even if we achieve a minority government (which I think is the best, realistic goal to hope for) all we end up doing is a favour for the Liberals by giving them the chance to remove Mr. Dithers (I mean Mr. Martin), currently our biggest asset…

2005-11-21T19:24:00.000-07:00

(This post was written for Sunday but problems with my connection meant it couldn’t be posted until now. I realize that I could modify the ‘date stamp’ after the fact but that practice strikes me as too reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984 ‘We’re at war with Eastasia, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia’…)

So, on Friday, while the Federal Court of Canada was rebuking my government for it’s firing practices, Public Works Canada was also making some interesting changes to its hiring practices. Hopefully these changes will also prove to be illegal, but until they are, any healthy white male applying for a job with that department will be wasting their time. In an e-mail, the department’s Deputy Minister, David Marshall, ordered his managers to hire only the disabled, visible minorities, women, aboriginals (leading me to wonder how ‘aboriginal’ one has to be if you don’t already qualify for either of the proceeding categories). To violate this order without written permission from their superiors would be a very bad thing. You can read more about this here (hoping link works).

This might not be the dumbest e-mail from a senior civil servant to fall into the public domain since Jo Moore’s September 11, 2001 advice to her fellow British administrators that 'today might be a good day to bury news that one doesn’t want the media to find out', but I can’t remember another contender. I, personally, am very tempted to immediately apply for any Public Works job I can find and when I’m rejected, take this e-mail and a lawyer and sue the government. Hopefully, someone else will do so, after all if it works for M. Pelletier…

Now I’m all for diversity in the workplace. I strongly believe that bringing people with different backgrounds into the same environment creates a synergy otherwise absent from workplaces lacking such diversity. So that’s a ‘good’ reason to have a diverse workforce. A ‘bad’ reason is the one articulated by Mr. Marshall, as executives and managers, our role includes ensuring that the public service is representative." What is ‘representative’? Why is one visible minority out of every five new hires ‘representative’? And if your managers aren’t meeting this goal, could it be that there just aren’t enough qualified candidates who also are visible minorities? And isn’t your primary role to deliver the best possible service at reasonable cost to the taxpayers who foot the bill? And how does your memo really address these issues other than adding another approval layer to the hiring process?

I can only hope Public Works Minister Brison can take some time off from his current bashing of Stephen Harper to ask his deputy some of these questions. Business before pleasure, after all…

2005-11-18T15:03:00.000-07:00

I'm impressed and employees of the federal government should feel a bit more secure. It's not that the federal government can't fire you, it's just that it doesn't know how to fire you... or at least that's how I interpret the Federal Court of Canada's reinstatement of Jean Pelletier to his position as Chairman of Via Rail. I almost feel sorry for Paul Martin, you have to wonder if pulling the trigger on his former boss' ex-chief-of-staff was one of the few pleasure he's enjoyed in two years of being PM; and now that bullet seems to have ricochet back and hit Martin in the foot.

According to Justice Noel, the government's decision to fire M. Pelletier was unfair because he wasn't informed of the reason for his dismissal or allowed to respond (ironic that, since it was a 'response' by M. Pelletier that got him into hot water in the first place). Which sorta begs the question of what process was used that didn't cover these fairly basic points? Presumably, we'll now have to pay Pelletier for the 18 months he's been off the job, yet another example of value for money in patronage appointments.

Federal Justice Minister Cotler is now 'studying' the decision. Am I naive for wondering if they couldn't have consulted a lawyer before firing M. Pelletier, and if they did, could we at least fire him?

2005-11-17T14:23:00.000-07:00

A Tale of Two Governments (and one very long post)

I can't help but compare the systems that produced the two economic updates released this week; one from Canada's federal government and one from Alberta's provincial government.

On the federal side, Liberal Finance Minister released an economic update (referred to by some as a 'mini-budget'). This update, which while it includes spending and taxation adjustments for the current fiscal years, is mostly phased spending over several years, while the government has a life-expectancy of anywhere from a few weeks to a few months at most. Indeed, some of the promised taxation reductions may not come until 2010 (begging the question of who knows what the economy, let alone the government, will looklike by that point!). The update also came the day after opposition leaders agreed to intoduce a motion calling for the government to call an election in January or face a non-confidence vote that would trigger an election before then.

Now, you might be forgiven for assuming that this economic update is a thinly disguised election platform for the forthcoming election. While I would forgive you, apparently Mr. Goodale would not. He insists that the timing of this update is sheer coincidence and that planning for it began as far back as May (i.e. while they were adjusting the '2005 budget' in order to stave off another non-confidence vote). In other words, I can be assured of economic updates from the government based firmly on a process established by and known only by the Finance Minister. Apparently, this rather opaque and obscure process can easily be distinguished from the Minister's whims, though I'm not sure how...

Now, by contrast, let's look at the Alberta model (relevent because I am an Albertan, but also because Alberta is the apothesis of everything evil, according to many Liberals -- well at least during elections). Under Alberta law, along with its annual budget, government release a 3 year business plan, including 3 year plans from each government department and other governmental organizations. These plans lay out the strategic and operational priorities over the three year cycle, along with performance measure designed to track progress that are recorded and reported each year in the government's annual report.

However, in addition, the Alberta Finance Minister is also required (again by law) to prepare and publicly report (whether the legislature is in session or not) quarterly updates on the current fiscal year's revenues and spending compared to the initial budget predictions. This means that the inevitable fluctuations that occur in government spending and revenues over the course of the year are reported on a regular basis about two months after the quarter has ended (i.e. the first quarter (April-June) is reported in August, the second quarter in November and so on. This transparency and regularity is vital to government accountability. If an unbudgeted contingency arises that requires more spending, that that must be reflected in the next quarterly update. Similarly, if revenues turn out to be lower than expected, the quarterly update will show this along with whatever measures the government is taking to compensate.

So why do I bring this up today. It's because I read that Paul Martin is planning to run on a platform emphasizing the Liberal record of fiscal responsibility and economic stewardship. And if that's what the election will be about, maybe Mr. Harper might have a few things to learn from Mr. Klein after all.

2005-11-16T17:39:00.000-07:00

I love Québec. I firmly believe that a strong, proud Province of Québec within Canada enhances and strengthens both sides and that a Québec decision to leave Canada would be unfortunate for Canada and probably even more unfortunate for Québec.

However, I must say that the selection of André Boisclair to lead the Parti Québécois tickles the ironic side of my political funnybone. Why? Just considering that a young, gay, cocaine user might actually succeed in divorcing Québec from Canada where the wise old statesmen like René Lévesque, Lucien Bouchard, and Bernard Landry have failed. If nothing else, it would prove the universe has a (rather nasty) sense of humour.

2005-11-15T22:21:00.000-07:00

Since much of this blog will involve political commentary, I think it's only fair to articulate some of my own views. Most people would define me as a 'conservative'; actually, I really tend to identify with late 19th and early 20th century (British) liberalism. In other words, I favour small government, free trade and social equality for all. In my view, the more roles a government undertakes, the less well it performs those roles and that a free market is much better at meeting people's needs than even the best-intentioned central planning.

Government's core responsibilities are:

fiscal responsibility,
maintaining law and order,
promoting our interests and relations abroad and defending those interests when required (i.e. foreign policy and national defence),
providing an infrastructure for its citizens (including environmental stewardship for future generations),
provide an educational foundation to allow citizens to pursue their aspirations and fully participate within society, and finally
assist those in our society who are in genuine need.

My views on government role in health care (the quintessential Canadian question) are more complex and deserve (and will no doubt receive) a post (or posts) of their own.

The words most likely to fill me with despair are 'why doesn’t the government do this?' or 'the government isn't doing enough about that'. The continuing abdication of personal responsibility in favour of a larger 'faceless' entity called 'government' is perhaps my greatest fear for the future; mainly because I don't believe government can handle it...

So those are my political views in a nutshell and will maybe give you an insight into my thoughts as I comment in future posts.

2005-11-14T14:11:00.000-07:00

After years of reading blogs and seeing my friends blog I have (insert drumroll) decided to overcome my natural inertia and enter the blogosphere myself. One of the reasons I've hesitated is the fear of going many days without anything relevent to say. So I've decided to adopt what I'm calling the triple strike approach defined as three instances where I go 3 days without a post (without a fantastically good reason like hospitalization or other inability to access the net) then I'm going the shut the whole thing down as a failed experiment. So that gives me until Thursday to come up with another post...

The other reason I've avoided blogging is because while I have used computers sucessfully in a number of areas, web pages/html is definitely not an area of expertise for me. So this blog is going to be very minimalist (e.g. few pictures, links, basic template, etc.) until I get more confident in what I'm doing.

So what's my blog about? Naturally, things that interest me. These are: current events, politics, history, science-fiction and fantasy, writing (I'm working on a novel, which I hope to publish one day) and anything else that catches my eye. You will not see a lot of references to popular culture (like Madonna's new CD, I acknowledge it exits and try to have as little to do with it as I possibly can) with the possible exception of the occasional movie that interests me (there have been three so far this year). Nor will you see much reference to sports (except that I'm a big Calgary Flames fan, which will no doubt come through from time), or my personal life (which is pretty uninteresting anyway).

So, I hope you enjoy the ride (long or short as it may be), but I must confess since I'm doing this for my own pleasure, I won't really lose sleep if you don't enjoy it.