Searching for Liberty

Now where have I seen this picture before..?

2009-11-13T15:53:00.000-07:00

The front page picture in the Calgary Herald of Danielle Smith following her election as leader of the Wild Rose Alliance Party..

I just can't shake the feeling that I've seen this picture before.

Dang, I can't quite remember..

Oh, wait..

Yeah, that's it..

While the Liberals Were Cooking Up Their Latest Scandal

2009-11-13T12:06:00.000-07:00

Quick follow-up on yesterday's post.

While the Liberals were quickly manufacturing another "scandal", there were four bi-elections in on Monday, in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and British Columbia, in which three of them sent some very distressing messages to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The result?

A Conservative victory in Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivieredu-Loup, where popular local mayor Bernard Genereux won by 1,500 votes to give the Tories their first win in the region in 16 years.

A further Conservative victory in regaining the Nova Scotia riding of Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, which had been held by an independent, Bill Casey

And while the Conservatives didn't win in Hochelaga, the seat remaining with the Bloc, while the Liberals outvoted the NDP in Hochelaga by a proportion of 19 to one in 2000, they ran third behind Jack Layton's candidate on Monday. In total, the NDP won 20 per cent of the vote against 14 per cent for the Liberals.

According to the Toronto Star, queries regarding the results to spokespersons for Ignatieff were unanswered.

But hey, you should ask him about MP Dykstra and his blackberry, there he'll give you an earful.

Well done, Michael Ignatieff, well done.

The Conservative Party of Canada.. is the difference nothing more than removing the word "Progressive" from the Party Name?

2009-11-13T08:23:00.000-07:00

I'm curious about this.

In a discussion yesterday with another blogger, I offered my opinion that voting Reform some time ago accomplished very little but giving Jean Chrétien an extended opportunity to stack our Senate and our Judiciary... and sneak a few dollars to his pals in Quebec in the bargain.

Am I wrong?

Is there a qualitative difference between the current result of that Reform experiment - the Conservative Party of Canada, and its predecessor, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada?

I don't see it. We still don't have an elected Senate. We don't have fixed election dates. We're doing pretty much the same things the previous PC Government did, just with a different name.

So what was the point? Don't get me wrong, I'm not ABOUT to support the LPC and their newest boondoggle, National Daycare... but, well, I'm wondering if there was anything really accomplished. And if there wasn't, is that necessarily a bad thing?

Your thoughts would be valued, so mark your ballot on my poll and drop a few lines if you feel inclined.

The Most Recent Liberal Effort

2009-11-12T16:33:00.001-07:00

I hate to say it, but two relatively decent Liberal bloggers are reporting today on the most recent Conservative "scandal" - that St. Catherine's MP Rick Dykstra was photographed looking at his blackberry during a Remembrance Day ceremony yesterday. The suggestion is that this sort of disrespect will not go unnoticed at election time.

Ok. For those of you keeping score at home, the current Liberal platform-in-waiting, the response to the needs of Canadians currently struggling through the world-wide recession is as follows:

a) We will not use large cheques as photo opportunities for government funding;

b) We will not allow any government supported sports program to use an emblem that has a "C" on it with the colors red and blue, because that looks too much like a Conservative logo, and if fact, we will seek to rename our country, "Borealia", one of the original names considered for this country, to avoid any further confusion with the Conservative Party of Canada;

c) We will assure that no MP uses a blackberry during any public event;

d) We will not take communion if we are not Catholic, and if we do take communion, we damn sure will make certain that someone verifies the eating of the communion wafer by photograph (uh.. we're not sure how to manage both (c) and (d), but we'll figure it out.); and

e) We will support an elected Senate as appointing anyone from within your own party's supporters is truly scandalous.

It is widely expected that item (e) will be soundly voted down in caucus as not being applicable to the Liberal Party of Canada as all of THEIR supporters will be even-handed and as such, appointments of Liberals will benefit Canadians while appointments from any other party's supporters would clearly bring society into ruin.

So.

That's it.

That's the sum total of what the Liberal's plan is to help Canadians.

I'll bet those out of work autoworkers in Ontario feel better already.

Do You Believe in Fairies? Or the Liberal Gun Registry?

2009-11-12T08:19:00.004-07:00

Well now.

Today we read that 61% of Canadians outside of Quebec do not believe the gun registry makes any difference in reducing gun crime, according to a Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll last week, reported here.

In a totally separate poll, it was found that in responding to societal issues, 61% of Canadians outside of Quebec prefer to deal with those issues in a pragmatic, common-sense fashion, where 39% would prefer to respond in a knee-jerk, hysterical fashion, regardless of the cost and the consequences.

Interesting.

Now. For anyone who might read this and actually support this incredible waste of money, and the most significant reason I finally gave up ever voting Liberal during my lifetime, I would ask:

On what basis has it been suggested to you that someone registering their gun is less likely to use it in a crime?

The answer is easy. No such suggestion is ever made, because it isn't true. Gun registry advocates will talk about anecdotal and sort of aspirational reasons to have the registry - you know, that police will be able to know if firearms exist in a home during a domestic altercation.. that they will be able to track down owners when they find the gun after it's been used in a crime...etc., etc... but they never suggest that the registry will reduce crime. Yet, 39% of Canadians outside of Quebec, and most of those in Quebec, think it will.

Scratch that. They WISH it would.

And that is the reason we have spent billions of dollars on the gun registry.

A wish.

And as Parliament has finally revisited the efficacy of the registry system, those supporting the registry are, as one would predict, hysterical and making their best effort to influence Canadians not to let it go.

It reminds me of another story you may have heard:

Her voice was so low that at first he could not make out what she said. Then he made it out. She was saying that she thought she could get well again if children believed in fairies.

Peter flung out his arms. There were no children there, and it was night time; but he addressed all who might be dreaming of the Neverland, and who were therefore nearer to him than you think: boys and girls in their nighties, and naked papooses in their baskets hung from trees.

"Do you believe?" he cried.

Tink sat up in bed almost briskly to listen to her fate.

She fancied she heard answers in the affirmative, and then again she wasn't sure.

"What do you think?" she asked Peter.

"If you believe," he shouted to them, "clap your hands; don't let Tink die."

Many clapped.

Some didn't.

A few beasts hissed.

The clapping stopped suddenly; as if countless mothers had rushed to their nurseries to see what on earth was happening; but already Tink was saved. First her voice grew strong, then she popped out of bed, then she was flashing through the room more merry and impudent than ever. She never thought of thanking those who believed, but she would have like to get at the ones who had hissed.

This is the mantra of gun control advocates, "no, we can't show you that the gun registry will help, but if you just believe, if you just clap your hands, the fairy won't die."

Sorry Tink. You're done for.

I'm Sorry Mainstream Media.. It appears you are willing to put Danielle Smith on the spot.. sort of.

2009-11-10T16:41:00.000-07:00

Well, I have to apologize, slightly, to the media. It appears the "bloom is off the Rose" (Pun clearly intended).

Witness the Calgary Herald today:

Heavy oil crowd gives Smith tepid welcome

CALGARY - An election-style speech presented to an early morning conference of heavy oil engineers and mid-level oil patch managers elicited only luke-warm response and just two questions for Wildrose Alliance Leader Danielle Smith Tuesday.

Well now, slap me silly and call me Sally.

Of course, this is the "media", and they don't necessarily represent their readers... and one often gets a better sense of the general reader response from the "comments" section.

Here's a sampling:

Steve C. - What a complete farce. Time to stomp out this Wild Rose before the weed spreads any further.

John - If the oil companies don't like Ed's plan, then it can't be that bad. The wildrose just might give even more of it away. Calgary, careful what you wish for.

Randall - Okaay...... what are they going to do for the people who don't work for Esso or don't go to church and hold the same religious views as "the ruling elite" ??

Ronnieblue - Oh yes, she is advocating even lower royalty rates to the oil industry to suck up to them, so there will be even less revenue to get out of the deficit. And as far as her more Libertarian views go, how does that fit in with the even more right social conservative views of the Wild Rose Alliance members at large.

JIm - What a surprise - the taskforce to set the Wildrose energy policy will be headed by oil industry executives. I wonder what they will say. And the Wildrose will fix the health care system by "cutting waste." How original.

As they say, the pitches come at you a lot faster in the bigs than down in the minors.

Danielle - welcome to the show.

Where's the Beef?

2009-11-10T07:01:00.002-07:00

So - I've been trading some thoughts, some more civil than others, but here's my biggest beef about the Wild Rose Alliance. They complain about the current deficit, but have NO plan for what they would do to make $8 billion in cuts required to erase it.

It's like watching Seinfeld. The Party about Nothing.

In the absense of some pretty concrete disclosure of whatever their plan is to balance the budget, one might assume:

a) They have no plan at all; or
b) Their plan would, well, create a certain degree of CONCERN in the Alberta public that they would prefer not to deal with.

Wild Rose Alliance.. an Alliance with Big Oil?

2009-11-09T14:23:00.000-07:00

So.

The Wild Rose Alliance is a "grassroots" party.

They are a party of the "average joe" in Alberta.

There are not a party simply on the "big oil dole".

Uh....

Wildrose leader goes after support of Calgary oilpatch in bid to take on Tories

(CP) – Nov. 9, 2009 (3 hours ago)

CALGARY — The leader of Alberta's burgeoning Wildrose Alliance party is going after the province's powerful oilpatch for support

In a breakfast speech to about 200 of the industry's key players, Danielle Smith promised that her party would make changes to the province's royalty framework.

Royalties have been a lightning rod for discontent in the Calgary business community since Premier Ed Stelmach reworked them two years ago.

Jim Davidson, who heads the Calgary investment firm FirstEnergy, organized the breakfast.

He says he wanted to introduce Smith to the "downtown core" and he suggests that the sellout crowd is a strong sign that business leaders are willing to listen to alternatives to the Stelmach government.

Stelmach survived his party's leadership review on the weekend with a 77 per cent approval rating, but Smith says he's still out of touch with the average Albertan.

Uh.. yeah. The "average" Albertan.

Indeed.

The "Coniberals" Should Be Happy as Clams.. but, oddly, they're exhibiting a certain anxiety today.

2009-11-09T08:41:00.001-07:00

Well.

Ezra Levant is up in arms. Calling Ed Stelmach a socialist. He and others are apparently all hot and bothered that the Progressive Conservatives didn't give their leader the bum's rush.

Well, Ezra. I've supported your efforts to oppose the HRC. I donated money. But pal, you're a one trick pony. Your magazine has gone up in flames, so, uh, gee, somehow, I'm not sure the Province wants to take financial advice from you... and, as with most current Coniberals, now known as the Wild Rose Party, you want to be spoon fed your solutions. You want to drive through the Coniberal World drive-through window and get your ready-made solution to our problems.

Although, I guess I have to ask, what, exactly, is the problem? We're still the lowest combined tax rate in the country. We have the best health care, the best education, pre- and post-secondary in Canada. What, exactly, is the problem?

Well - the oil industry is having some stress. But then go ask an average Albertan about anyone they know in the oil industry this past decade, and see if they feel a lot of sympathy for those who spent money like, to borrow a phrase, "a sailor on shore-leave". The Coniberal grasshoppers fiddled while the "ants" in Alberta, did what conservatives do. They acted conservatively, didn't buy houses they didn't need, didn't go out and spend $70,000.00 on a truck they didn't need.. and they're getting through the recession like conservatives do. By digging down and taking care of themselves. And not whining when the government doesn't save them from their own mistakes.

Who isn't happy?

Those who blew their load, and when the WORLD (not Alberta) oil industry took a dive.. when they were caught with their fat pants around their ankles. The solution? Well, the Coniberals just throw some more money out the window at the Wild Rose Alliance, to see if they can pay them off to reduce oil royalty rates, even though we already have amongst the lowest rates in the world.

Problem is - they know full well, the Wild Rose Alliance isn't a viable alternative. So - like spoiled children, they've thrown a tantrum, and now their pissed off that he REAL Conservatives in Alberta didn't respond to their tantrum to demand a new leader.

Why aren't they a viable alternative? Well, what are they going to actually do? Their current platform has more holes than a Saskatchewan highway. They don't have a plan to reduce the deficit. They talk about mindless ideas like, "cash follows the child" and "cash follows the patient" - but ask the tough question - as the Premier did on Friday night.

Where are YOU going to drop $8 billion from our current budget without hurting Albertans? Tell us Danielle. Tell us Ezra. We've heard the complaints. Now we want solutions.

Detail the cuts to bring the budget into a non-deficit position right now.

If you wan to sit at the adults table, you have to do more than throw tantrums.

Albertans are waiting.

News of Ed's Demise Were Greatly Exaggerated

2009-11-07T20:06:00.001-07:00

The talking heads must be spinning today.

After watching them track down the odd disaffected PC Member and making noise about "widespread dissention" in the party, well, Premier Ed Stelmach obtains a clear mandate of his party to continue in the leadership of the party.

A clearly supportive crowd last night roared their approval when Ed Stelmach, in a rare show of emotion, raised his voice to one in the crowd questioning the current deficit, asking, "If you have a plan to reduce our budget by $8 billion in one year to balance our budget, please, tell me how." And then, as he has been widely quoted in the media, telling the apparent Wild Roser, "We will not gut the Province of Alberta to balance the budget in one year."

I had the very good fortune to speak with the Premier on two occasions last night, and he re-affirmed to me that he is one who should not be underestimated. The plan of continuing to make education and health care a priority, which means, spending more money than any other Province in Canada will stay on course. He will not change the plan for the purpose of political expediency.

Those looking through wild rose colored glasses can go support their party, devoid of a plan, devoid of a real purpose, and the Progressive Conservative party will continue to do what they have done for almost 40 years. Provide Alberta with the most competitive business environment in Canada (go ahead, review the Fraser Institute's Studies on over-all taxation), with the highest commitment to post secondary funding, and the highest commitment to health care funding in Canada.

Even as the party gave the Premier clear support, the whiners continue, suggesting the vote was not really a support for the Premier as much as a vote for self-preservation.

Here's the thing. Conservatives - real Conservatives, don't jump ship every time a gale comes up. They work through adversity. I've said it before, but like our parent's parents who settled this Province; Conservatives are made of better stuff. We stand behind our leader and have faith that, in due course, his plan will be shown to have been the "right stuff" for Albertans.

Those who want to dine at McDonalds can go ahead and find a party to promise quick delivery at the drive-through window - though they may find it is lacking in any significant nutritional value, and in the long term, will be wishing they stayed home to a meal that took some time and effort to prepare.

So.. Off to Red Deer. And Don't Call Me a Hero.

2009-11-06T07:06:00.001-07:00

U.N. Security Counsel Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced this morning that with the situation in Okotoks having become much more severe, U.N. Security forces will be re-deployed from Somalia later this week, to deal with the throngs of Alberta refugees who have been seen making their way slowly along the TransCanada Highway towards their destination in Gull Lake, Saskatchewan.

Notwithstanding that our Province is in the midst of Armageddon, awash with mass hysteria, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... I'm going to bravely walk outside my door this morning and drive myself to Red Deer for the Progressive Conservative Annual General Meeting.

Don't say I'm a hero. Yes, I know that the Province of Alberta is, no doubt, the most frightening place on earth to live today. I realize that our health care system is in a shambles (oh, I won't be blogging on Monday morning because I'm going in to a radiology clinic to obtain a routine echocardiogram as a follow up to a medical I had with my family doctor a couple weeks ago) and that crime is rampant (I wonder if CBC Radio will be doing another program on how Alberta is leading all provinces in grappling with violent crime in Canada as they did Wednesday?)

No, notwithstanding the risks of going out alone in Alberta, as your trusted blogger, I'm putting my life on the line, as I owe it to my readers to risk everything to report on just how bad it truly is all over this Province. Should I survive the trek, with laptop in hand, I'll let you know how the meeting goes.

Pray for me.

Shooting Down the Long Gun Registry

2009-11-05T07:58:00.001-07:00

Well.

20 Liberal and NDP MP's have broken ranks and voted to support the Conservative motion to abolish the long gun registry yesterday, resulting in the motion being approved in commons to now go to committee for study.

I say to those Liberal and NDP MP's, well done. There are, apparently, some MP's who THINK when they vote.

Why would they do this? Well, curiously enough, while listening to CBC Radio yesterday morning there was an excellent discussion regarding the gun registry, including two experts on youth violence. Their opinion? That there is absolutely nothing in any serious study to suggest that the gun registry would have any impact on reducing violence. No such studies even exist. And that the reason there isn't any such, according to them, is that there is nothing in the existing body of knowledge that would even suggest that such a study would be worth entertaining. The speakers were unanimous that $2 billion dollars would be much better spent in programs that current studies have already shown can be effective in reducing violence, particularly in early intervention with young people.

Mia Dauvergne, senior analyst with Statistics Canada provided information that there is no indication that since the gun registry gun crimes have reduced - in fact, the suggestion is they have increased somewhat. Moreover, if one has regard to the article by Simon Fraser University and U.B.C. professors, Gary Mauser and W.T. Stanbury, we can see that registry proponents have misused statistics that do exist to mislead the public - and that, in fact, again, they point out:

Even criminologists who do not support firearm ownership agree (albeit sometimes reluctantly) that no solid evidence can be found to support restricting access to firearm ownership among the general public (Jacobs, 2002; Kleck 1997; Mauser and Maki, 2003). This is reassuring news since the best available research suggests that access to firearms does not increase overall suicide, homicide, or accident rates (Kleck, 1997; Lott, 2003).

And they go on to conclude:

As long as advocates of “gun control” continue to ignore the significant body of academic research that conflicts with their own orthodoxy, Canada’s gun laws will continue to be an ineffective way to save lives.

Again, on CBC yesterday, University of Ottawa Professor of Criminology Irv Waller, author of "Less Law- More Order" also reiterated the clear opinion that the Gun Registry is really a boondoggle which will have no measurable affect upon gun crime - with the money being much better used to address social programs to reduce violence, such as those employed in Boston to spectacular results.

Oh. And a pat on the back to Alberta, which was suggested to be the most innovative province in Canada in establishing programs to reduce violence in our communities. Creating a cohesive relationship between communities and between agencies in those communities, including police and social services is said to be the model of addressing violence in our streets.

When University Professors in the field of criminology seem aligned with Conservatives, you would hope more Liberal and NDP MP's will begin to understand just how stupid Allan Rock was when he introduced the massive waste of taxpayer dollars called the Gun Registry.

Today, for the first time in a while, I'm proud to be supporting the Conservative Party of Canada, and, I have to say, I also have a grudging respect for those Liberal and NDP MP's who showed the right stuff in standing beside them to stop this pointless waste of dollars.

Of course, the only thing better than fixing a mistake is preventing it from happening in the first place - note to Liberal and NDP MP's - take another look at Universal Daycare.

H1N1 - was invented by Ed Stelmach and Ron Liepert

2009-11-03T08:41:00.001-07:00

Calls for resignation of our health minister, Ron Liepert were echoing in Edmonton as the Liberals and the NDP did their best to take advantage of a difficult health issue to make political points. To hear them, one might assume that the H1N1 was created by the PC Party of Alberta.

Well, let me point out a couple of things, that one might think, David Swann, being a doctor, might have some passing knowledge of.

Well, to begin with, Alberta has received significantly less vaccine that originally anticipated, and has been required to re-jig it's program on the fly in response to that shortfall.

So - it must be that rotten federal Conservative government no? Well, that's the problem according to the federal NDP and Liberals. The Conservatives dropped the ball. Just ask them.

Problem is, well, the Conservatives also were caught off guard when anticipated supplies didn't materialize, again, requiring a re-adjustment on the fly regarding dispersal of the vaccine. The reality?

Roll-out of the vaccine was delayed when the cultures of H1N1 needed to make the vaccine produced low yields and was further delayed when manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline was forced to turn over part of its production to produce pure, or unadjuvanted, vaccine for pregnant women. Most of the vaccine being distributed in Canada is a mix of vaccine and a cocktail of additives — called an adjuvant — that multiplies its effectiveness.

Huh. So there just isn't enough to go around. And that's the fault of... well, no one. Guess what, fellow citizens, not everything can be guaranteed to be delivered in 5 minutes out of the drive-through window of your local McDonalds. Sometimes, there is only so much we can do.

Unless you are Michael Ignatieff or Jack Layton.

But then, I ask myself, wasn't there a plan in place during the decades of Liberal government’s stewardship of the health care of Canadians? Wasn't there already an established protocol for administration of large-scale vaccines in the face of a pandemic? Certainly the Liberals had an established plan of attack already, didn't they?

Well - if they didn't, why not? If perfection is the order of the day for federal Liberals, why weren't THEY perfect?

The reality is that, as made very clear in the World Health Organization's report on "Whole of Society Pandemic Readiness", a proper response requires broad-based cooperation, from the local community level to the international relations between nations.

And making political points does not advance that cause.

Instead of trying their best to get on the front page, and playing cheap political parlor-games like demanding "resignations", what should be happening is leaders, true leaders, offer their hand and say, "how can we help?"

That appears to be too much to expect from our politicians at this time of broad societal insecurity regarding the welfare of all of our citizens. That appears to be too much to expect from a medical doctor, who, last I understood, was required to take an oath saying, primum non nocere- a Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm."

Now.. to be fair, would be expect more from a Conservative government in opposition? Sadly, I fear not. I think the illness of politics in western democracy is not party-specific, but infects the body politic as a whole. Now, thankfully, it appears that the H1N1 is probably not the killer it could be. But, if it was, what might we expect from politicians then? Something to think about as this current situation could be a dress rehearsal for something much worse.

Parks Canada Bulletin: Wildlife at Risk

2009-10-30T15:24:00.003-06:00

Important Notice

The above photo captures a disturbing trend that has been affecting Canadian Wildlife, putting them at risk. Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Liberal Party of Canada, no longer feeding themselves, they just sit and wait for the Federal government to provide for their care and sustenance. The public is warned not to approach or feed these confused animals and to simply allow nature to take its course – leaving the strong and independent to survive.

Some Current Observations.. Shell Cutting Jobs, Feds Taking Money, Alberta getting the shaft.

2009-10-30T09:09:00.002-06:00

Well, let's play some connect the dots.

Ok. First. Following up on my commentary to yesterdays' post, in the absense of any cogent response to the contrary, it would appear that the attack on carbon production in North America and Europe is a more than one-sided approach to climate change issues, that is heavy on politics and light on science.

But let's move foward, shall we.

Royal Dutch Shell is laying off perhaps 10% of its workforce. Not in Canada, but Worldwide. As reported by spokeswoman Kirsten Smart, more than half of the job cuts will impact the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the U.S.. Read that again, just in case you miss the point. People are losing their jobs in the petroleum industry in places that Ed Stelmach is not the Premier. So much for the Wild Rose Alliance push to suggest the energy downturn is a "Stelmach" event. Welcome to reality.

Ok. Point made, let's move on some more.

A recent join report of the David Suzuki (Liberal Party of Canada) Foundation and the Pembina Institute, suggests that a cap and trade program to meet Ottawa's CO2 goals by 2020 will cost Alberta $5 billion. Further, such a scheme would hamper Alberta's GDP growth by 8.5%. Our current Premier, Ed Stelmach, says, "not on his watch."

Here's the thing - because I'm sure many will see it as "Alberta complaining..again." Lets assume that there is no other rational way to respond to climate change issues (which there are, see yesterday's commentary). Let's assume that a cap and trade system is the best way to address carbon reductions. Let's even assume that growth in population and investment should be ignored when addressing CO2 goals (in other words, if your Province is "lucky enough" to suffer massive reductions in population and industry, you can meet the goals simply because of your poor economic performance, but if your province succeeds, well, you will get penalized so that even if, on a per-business basis, your CO2 is reduced, we'll get penalized anyway, simply because we have MORE businesses and the current cap and trade discussion is demanding hard caps, not percentage reductions) In other words, lets assume that penalizing success is a good policy goal.

Alright. In the face of all these (questionable) assumptions - we still are left with this. The suggestion is that Ottawa takes money OUT of Alberta, and then distributes it elsewhere, even though the direct impact of these efforts will hurt Albertans. Ed Stelmach's push, in part, is that any money taken in carbon tax STAYS in Alberta, perhaps to invest in green industry HERE.

Explain to me WHY this isn't a good plan.

**toe tapping**

Fasten your seatbelts, Alberta, it's going to be a bumpy night.

Todays Poll: Tories 40%, Libs 26%, NDP 17%. And the Liberals continue to tell Canadians how stupid they are.

2009-10-29T07:28:00.001-06:00

So.

Yesterday, I'm on another blog discussing the whole "Climate Change" thing.. and because I still have some questions, I get attacked because I'm one of those blasphemers or heretics who doesn't just swallow everything that he is fed. I'm a person who believes that the science DOES suggest we can negatively impact our Climate - but I'm not convinced that the REALITY of that impact is as dire as some might suggest. I'm not saying I KNOW it won't be that bad, I'm saying, I have questions.

And that isn't allowed, you know. And it's not just that those who disagree on this point will explain to you WHY, they use words like "denier" and "liar" and so forth - and they really go out of their way to diminish the genuine feelings of uncertainty that you have. And in doing so, they distance themselves and make it LESS likely that you will consider anything they have to say.

This is the arrogance and the lack of connection with reality that permeates Liberal politics. They have no time for discussion with those who are "less enlightened", like you and me. But, Mr. Ignatieff and other Liberal "great thinkers", here is the thing.

Most Canadians aren't that sure that everything you say is just so. And as you diminish their understandable lack of trust in you, as you attack those who happen to disagree with you, you effectively provide more support for Stephen Harper and his Conservatives.

I'll tell you something, which is difficult to admit. I did at one point waver. There was a part of me at one point that thought Ignatieff could be a leader. Then, as time went by, clearly from my blogs, it was apparent he was a charlatan, a fake - that he was no leader.

However - with the "big cheque" fiasco, and following up on differences I have with the Conservative position on crime control, some concerns I have about the appointments to the Senate, I was becoming a little jaded on the whole game. And I felt like, perhaps, being more of a bystander, than a participant.

Today? I cut a cheque to the Conservative Party of Canada. I encourage every person reading my blog today to do the same thing. There is no place in MY Canada for those who diminish the concerns and the questions of the average Canadian. There is no proper outcome in the next election but a complete and utter defeat of the Liberal Party of Canada.

And that takes money.

So, fellow "thinkers", for those of you who want to have the liberty to speak your mind, to be spoken to by your leaders, not "down to from" your leaders - dig in to your pockets. And send a message to the Liberals in this country.

You screwed with the wrong people.

McGuinty seeking to bankrupt Ontario.. one-upping the Liberal Plan for Canada and Hurting Children in the Bargain

2009-10-28T08:31:00.002-06:00

So.

Dalton McGuinty, following up on the outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars in its ill-fated health care records fiasco, and the resignation of his Minister of Health, seeks to push Ontario deeper into the red, and in the bargain, hurt Ontario's children in the bargain. Does his temerity know no end? No - not for a true Liberal it doesn't - because facts and expenses be damned - when they know they are right, there is no dissuading them from a bad idea, no matter what the evidence is against them (can you say "gun registry system"?) Further - the point of this, really, has nothing to do with "helping" his Province, it has to do with creating a legacy. Every Liberal politician from McGuinty to Ignatieff wants to be the next "Tommy Douglas" - cost and actual benefit is irrelevant. McGuinty knows full-well that once parents get a taste of not paying or looking after their 4 year olds, barring actual bankruptcy (which is possible for Ontario), no future government will be able to persuade Ontario to give it up. His legacy will be established.

Yesterday McGuinty committed Ontario to a full-day "early education" (daycare) program for 4 and 5 year old children. That's right. Now you, Ontario taxpayer, have the privilege of making sure that people earning $500,000.00 per year do no have to pay for child care anymore once their children are 4. Wonderful. Just what you need with record unemployment and dismal business performance - increased government spending.

For the rest of us in Canada - well, just wait. Once Ontario gets a taste of not having to pay for their child care, as is already the case in Quebec (ok.. so they pay $7.00 per day, it's pretty much free), the nature of democracy in Canada will almost assure that it will happen throughout the country if the Liberals get into power.

Now - don't get me wrong. I think subsidized daycare to assure employment for single parents or for those who are living in the low and lower-middle income levels of society is a great idea. So would similar value tax credits be a great idea for those who would prefer to stay home and raise their children.

I have a problem with paying for child care for the wealthy. I have a problem with penalizing or at least not rewarding parents equally for tending to their children's care themselves.

Why?

Well, let’s start with a frightening statistic.

According to recent studies, nearly 1/2 of 19 to 25 year olds may be suffering from some form of personality disorder. Think about that. Half of the new group of parents and teachers and police officers and judges and so on... suffer from a personality disorder.

What's a personality disorder?

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV), a personality disorder is an "enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectation of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment." Because these disorders are chronic and pervasive, they can lead to serious impairments in daily life and functioning.

Think about that. For some reason, young people, half of them perhaps, will be suffering from a mental condition that may prevent them from becoming fully functioning parents and participants in society.

Why? There is no clear understanding of the root causes - most studies suggest a combination of genetic and environmental factors - though many studies put weight on improper attachments being formed during early child hood. Poor parenting and lack of attachment at an early age.

Getting the idea yet?

Ok.. let's go a little further. Have a look at a recent study (2008) by Michael Baker (University of Toronto), Jonathan Gruber, (MIT) and Kevin Milligan (University of British Columbia), entitled "Universal Childcare, Maternal Labor Supply and Family Well-Being". The thrust of the study? That while there clearly are advantages to the workforce by assisting in women entering the work force, the results of the Quebec experiment are not proving to be good for their children. According to the Gruber study looking at the impact of increased use of daycare:

"..we uncover evidence that children are worse off in a variety of behavioral and health dimensions, ranging from aggression to motor-social skills to illness. Our analysis also suggests that the new childcare program led to more hostile, less consistent parenting, worse parental health, and lower-quality parental relationships."

Read that again, just to make sure you got the point. Spending money that the Ontario government doesn't have, will, according to this study, result in a negative impact on children's health and behavior. It will also lead to more hostile and inconsistent parenting, it will worsen parental health, and create "lower quality parental relationships."

This past year showed the highest rates of divorce in the United States since 1976.

Ok. Now work backwards. Increased use of daycare results in poorer parental relationships and reduced quality of parenting. And, I would suggest, not coincidentally, young people are showing extremely high rates of personality disorders, which, in turn, (as less than 25% of them are seeking help) will probably result in them being worse parents and having less secure relationships with their co-parent. Can you see the cycle? The answer is to "support" parenting - not reduce it.

Isn't it about time we stopped giving lip service to the idea that the state is not equipped to parent our children. At what point do we start to realize that maybe, just maybe, the thrust in society away from the independence of the family and the importance of informal communities is perhaps serving us very badly.

Isn't it about time that we told mindless ideologues like Dalton McGuinty, "enough is enough"?

Our children are begging us to take a stand. Don't let them down.

It's a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood..

2009-10-27T13:37:00.000-06:00

It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood,

A beautiful day for a neighbor,

Would you be mine?

Could you be mine?

Please won't you be my neighbor?

I. Can't. Take. It.

The Liberal Party of Canada just gets more stupid and more, well, embarrassing. It's almost like I suddenly want to see a good idea from them. The fact that the official opposition in Canada is this pathetic is an affront to all Canadians. Even Conservatives like me should be ashamed.

I can see the morons at work, the old, tired Liberal "War Machine".

Old Guys: "We need to take advantage of how bad Stephen Harper looks in a sweater, it will create a contrast - you, Michael, are a great sweater-wearer, this is gold."

New Guy: "Uh, how about we spend some time creating some good policy that will help Canadians.."

Old Guys: "Who asked you? We don't need policy.. we need bright red sweaters, and little kids."

New Guy:" Uh, yeah.. I'll be a Tim Horton's.. while I'm gone, maybe re-think spending a billion or so on daycare for lawyers' and dentists' kids.."

Old Guys: "..maybe we add a cute kitten..."

Hi boys and girls, can you say, "Majority Conservative Government". Good. I knew that you could.

Reading "Harper's".. not for the faint of heart Conservative, but some moving insight on Afghanistan

2009-10-27T07:40:00.000-06:00

So.

I'm at the airport yesterday, returning from Minneapolis, and I'm looking for something to read on the plane, and, having a taste for politics, I see some interesting articles in "Harper's", and so I pick up a copy.

Well, I first read the letters to the editor, and I start to wonder what I've gotten myself into. Clearly, the predominant political bent in this magazine is liberalism, and I'm giving myself a headache over the one-sided babble, and it doesn't get too much better when I read an article on Climate Change, which, typically, is histrionic. However - I then find an incredibly well-written article on the Afghanistan War.

The essay is titled "The War We Can't Win", and it's written by Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University and former officer in the U.S. Army - full text of the article can be found in online journal, "The Commonweal".

I think to grow, to challenge ourselves, we have to move outside of comfortable like-minded thought. Too easy to sit with our fellow conservatives and say, "The world is as we say it is". So, while the title alone may result in an immediate urge to toss the article away - I recommend it highly. It has some very interesting things to say.

Not only does the article suggest that the Afghan war cannot be won - it posits that we don't even need to be at war. It suggests that the natural desire of people to be free, to seek to find a better life, will cause the religious theocracies to fail, as they are failing in Iran.

This is an interesting point - and I felt it intensely myself when I traveled to the Soviet Union in 1979. At that time, Brezhnev was in power and the iron curtain was still very tall and strong. It would still be 8 years before Ronald Regan would exhort Mr. Gorbechev to "Tear down this wall!" However - even a high school student could see that the wall was being torn down from the inside. In the absence of the internet, information was getting to the Russian people - information of rock and roll music, and McDonald's hamburgers, and Levi blue jeans - and they wanted their piece of western decadence and were not long going to tolerate a government who was trying to keep it from them.

Such is the case now in Iran - but more so. In the time of Blackberries, there is no place on the globe where people can be sheltered from the reality of freedom.

After traveling to Moscow and (then) Leningrad, a friend of mine was touting the U.S.A. for keeping us "safe from the Russians". According to him, if it were not for the U.S., the Soviets would be claiming Canada as theirs in a heartbeat. My response? "They can't even control their own people... do you really think they want to try and control a whole other continent?" And in a moment of naive prescience, I predicted, then in 1979, that the Soviet Union would fall. Because of blue jeans, and Boney M.

The U.S. notion of the necessity of exporting democracy is so one-minded it is almost embarrassing. Seeking to occupy countries under some, allegedly, noble notion of helping to sow the seeds of democracy does little but to empower the fascists and the zealots. "See the great Satan occupy our lands" they exclaim, and, as war continues to rage, they blame the occupier, even as they blow up their country's own infrastructure and people.

Bacevich makes another very interesting point. He writes:

For those who, despite all this, still hanker to have a go at nation building, why start with Afghanistan? Why not first fix, say, Mexico? In terms of its importance to the United States, our southern neighbor—a major supplier of oil and drugs among other commodities deemed vital to the American way of life—outranks Afghanistan by several orders of magnitude.

If one believes that moral considerations rather than self-interest should inform foreign policy, Mexico still qualifies for priority attention. Consider the theft of California. Or consider more recently how the American appetite for illicit drugs and our liberal gun laws have corroded Mexican institutions and produced an epidemic of violence afflicting ordinary Mexicans. We owe these people, big-time.

Think about THAT for a moment.

I say, as Bacevich says, leave now. Let the natural tendency towards democracy happen. Maybe it will not happen in a decade or even a generation, but it will happen. As Bacevich suggests, take all of the billions being spent on an unsinkable war, and use the money to influence the local warlords, to maintain intelligence, and, to use surgical attacks on Al Qaeda where it occurs - but keeping no troops on the ground. And let the people seek their own freedom.

The internet will make it happen. As long as the government keeps their mitts off. Right now - it is the supreme example of democracy, of a "governmentless" communication medium and those who access it know that. If it ever comes to a point where it is being controlled or edited by government - it will lose that purity. It will not longer be "trusted" in the sense of being something where all thoughts can be shared, wise and not-so-wise. And it will lose the power to promise "blue jeans and Boney M".

Where is the intelligent discussion regarding health care?

2009-10-23T06:34:00.003-06:00

So, I'm blogging from Minneapolis, Minnesota today, attending a conference of Collaborative lawyers, financial professionals and mental health professionals. If you would like some more information regarding what Collaborative Practice is - and how it can help resolve Divorce issues in a respectful way, I encourage you to look here:

http://www.collaborativepractice.com

Last night I had the good fortune to share dinner with some fellow conference attendees, including a lawyer from the U.K., a lawyer from Washington, D.C., and a lawyer from Minneapolis. The discussion quickly came to the recent efforts of the U.S. to come to grips with the issue of health care.

Here is what you learn at such a table:

The Americans supporting Obama have a notion that the Canadian system is quite perfect, and that any alleged imperfections are simply untrue propaganda coming from the right.

The British have a truly two-tiered health care system, where doctors are free to provide full medical care on a private basis, and, at the same time, work under the National Health Care program, however,even under that system, the cost of health care is breaking their bank and they are struggling with how to control that.

In Canada, I daresay, we have an understanding that the private health care system of the U.S. is neither efficient, nor providing needed care for many who live in middle class and either cannot afford private insurance, or have preexisting illness that prevents them from getting health care even if they could afford it.

However - both the left and the right in Canada suffer under what seems to be some serious delusion:

a) Allowing for full private care choice (as in the U.K.) will not result in a serious loss of quality in the public care system. At lease according to my dinner companion, most doctors continue to work in both systems, and the quality of care, either private or public, is very comparable; BUT

b) Allowing for private health care in Canada as a companion to the public system will not, apparently, reduce our health care budget sufficient to resolve our problems with our burgeoning health care budget.

So, as we talked about it, it became apparent that the answer to the health care isn't simply going to be the deliver system, it's going to be, it appears, some tough choices like maybe we can't have all the care we want all of the time. Maybe some of our own health care is going to be left on our own shoulders, both in terms of preventative care and in terms of elective or non-essential service. It's a frightening proposition, however, what is clear is that to grapple with the problems, we need to deal in the realm of "truth" and not "myths".

As I've said before, we need more "ideas" and fewer "ideologues".

"Twidiots"

2009-10-21T11:43:00.004-06:00

Shout out to the Aardvark for pointing out the latest stupid Liberal trick today, Ujjal Dosanjh wrongfully disclosing confidential Commons Defence business via Twitter.

One has to wonder just why we would respect any of our MP's who insist on utilizing this pointless addition to our digital world. Think about it. This guy is supposed to be attending a meeting of some apparent national importance, and, in theory, participating in the discussion - and he's busy "twittering". Clearly he was in the midst of vigorous discussion.

So. The Liberals numbers continue to plummet, and, rather than become "engaged" in the national debate, they are simply now "reporting" on the national debate. Well done Ujjal.

Add Ujjal to the growing list of twidiots.

From the Urban Dictionary:

Twidiot:
Someone who twitters constantly, usually about insignificant or trifling events.
I took Bob off my twitter email alerts, because he twitters about everything, every second. Honestly, do I need to know when he's taking a dump? He's a straight up twidiot.

I'm fairly "hip" to advancing technology. But just because something is "new" doesn't mean it's worthwhile.

Don't get me wrong. If you an Iranian dissident seeking to organize protest rallies, I'm sure the immediacy of twitter can be a very useful tool.

However - outside of the war zone, particularly during meetings, during Parliamentary debate and such, twitter is a quick giveaway as to who is doing their job and who isn't.

Twitter, as I've said before, is the means of saying less, but faster. And to any MP, Liberal or Conservative, who thinks I need to know when they are taking a dump.. I don't. And neither does anyone else.

A word of advice: Quite often, communicating faster with less thought, is a very bad thing for a politician.

The Liberals still just don't have a clue..

2009-10-21T08:42:00.003-06:00

Damn.

I'm starting to feel badly for Liberal supporters. There are good and decent people out there who, perhaps for very valid reasons, choose not to support the Conservative government. And they pin their hopes on the Liberal Party of Canada, and the person who, more and more, appears to be their temporary leader, Michael Ignatieff.

While I may not agree with them, they deserve better than what they are getting.

What are they getting?

Well, most recently, they have a party and a leader, who is consumed with talking about nothing else but the stimulus cheques and their use for political purposes. By now you've all seen them, big stupid cheques being handed out in communities all over Canada. I've already blogged that they are a stupid mistake and the Prime Minister should just fess up already and say, "My bad" and maybe even propose a law prohibiting the use of government funding as photo opportunities for the party in power.

The complaint, made once, is valid. But, oh, after the 100th time it's made, over and over again, well, it raises two pretty significant issues:

a) Uh, is this all you've got, Mr. Ignatieff? Is this your "recipe" for "We Can Do Better?" To complain and complain. Oddly enough, no demand for a formal change to the process. Perhaps because the Liberals fully intend, as soon as they assume their place as the "natural governing party", to do the same and then some;

b) The bigger issue. The continued braying of the Liberal power elite about these cheques simply gives Conservatives opportunity after opportunity to remind Canadians of the Liberals not only using government money for their own political purposes,but actually defrauding the tax payers, through the Sponsorship Scandal. Perhaps Michael Ignatieff and his attack dog really don't understand he seriousness of that breach - but giving Canadians cause to continue the conversation regarding massive misuse of taxpayer dollars is hardly a recipe for improved polls.

Michael. Stand for something positive already. Tell Canadians that you have a plan, an idea of some sort. The barking dog and fear-mongering is so played. Your supporters deserve something more.

Oh. By the way. Universal Daycare, while a spectacularly bad idea in and of itself, is going to be viewed as particularly bad in this economy. The taxpayers are not about to take your complaints of deficits seriously while you, just two days ago,make Universal Daycare the pillar of your party's rejuvenation.

Let me make it simple:

A laid off auto worker in Windsor may not be supporting the Liberal government asking average Canadian taxpayers to pick up the tab for daycare for a lawyer or dentist in Toronto who's wife would like the government to look after her children so she can take yoga classes or pursue her interior design diploma at the community college.

The Special Obligation of the Political Right

2009-10-20T08:00:00.004-06:00

I really enjoy the blog format of discussion, it's truly an amazing experiment in free speech and, really, democracy. Not so long ago, no one could imagine the extent to which we could "reach out and touch someone" across the country or even across the globe. In the flick of a mouse click. With virtually no expenditure, unhampered by the historical monopolization of media sources,the internet allows us to express ourselves to a potentially broad audience in ways that were unfathomable 30 years ago.

This is what "free speech" is all about.

However - as has been suggested to me, sometimes not-so-subtly, so often the proponents of free speech are seen to stand, hand in hand, with the most odious of society. The bigots and the racists and those who would see other fellow human beings as "less than".

As I have said, however, so often the cause of free speech must be trumpeted even as the speech we are seeking to protect is odious and offensive. As has been stated often, real freedom must include the right to offend.

But this isn't the point of this post. This isn't a discussion regarding what, if any, controls should be placed upon free speech.

This is a suggestion that those of us who consider ourselves on the right, who consider ourselves small "c" conservatives, have a peculiar obligation I think. We have an obligation even as we advocate free speech, to be unequivocal in our denunciation of racism and bigotry.

Why? Why is our burden any different than any other citizen? Because as we stand to argue the cause of free speech, as we oppose those who seek to muzzle those with unpopular and even offensive beliefs, we run the risk of appearing to not just support the broad cause of free speech, but to also to support the content of that speech.

And this is not an "optics" issue, though that concern is valid. The current Conservative Party has been required to work hard to distance itself from those members of the far right who would seek to turn back time, to ignore the real complicity we have in the plight of our aboriginal citizens, who hold xenophobic views of everyone who "isn't like them."

It is beyond that. There are those, bigots and racists, who will see our support for free speech as a support for THEIR views. Who will imagine us standing beside them in their twisted cause. And this we cannot allow. We cannot allow the twisted small minority of bigots and racists to imagine that they are more than a small and insignificant portion of the broader society. We must be unequivocal that we do not stand "with them."

It is a burden that liberals do not carry. It is a burden that only us, on the right, must undertake. So - I would urge those of us on the right who will continue to raise our voice in the cause of free speech, to assure that just as loudly, we make it clear that those who seek to take take freedom away from others - those people stand alone.

The Aussies Show Us a Thing or Two About Free Speech

2009-10-18T10:17:00.004-06:00

Just by chance, yesterday, I happened upon a debate on BBC, discussing the topic, "Is Democracy Right for Everyone".

As part of their "Festival of Dangerous Ideas", there was convened two panels taking sides, pro and con, on the issue in question. And then the public was allowed to give their input. And then the members there, all 1200 present in the Sydney Opera House, were asked to vote on the issue.

My lord, how we could use this sort of open discussion in Canada.

So often, we are served "media bites" of information and have nice little boxes of "McAnswers" given to us by politicians, with little, if any, broad and full debate on matters of broad public interest. Australia has created a format which is not a debate between parties, so is not watered down with people trying to "play the crowd", but includes a panel of intelligent speakers who assert, to their best ability, the points for and against the matters in issue.

Some of the topics:

Democracy: Is it for everyone?
Our Current Immigration Rate is Too High
The Media Cannot Be Trusted to Tell the Truth
Public Funding of Private Education is Unconscionable
Freedom of Expression Must Include the Right to Offend
We Should Legislate Euthanasia

For More Information go to "Intelligence Squared Australia".. and open your mind.

Any volunteers to set up similar debates in Canada?

Mark Dyrholm given the boot.. NOW things will get more interesting.

2009-10-18T08:50:00.003-06:00

To no one's shock, Danielle Smith was voted in as leader of the Wild Rose Alliance over the weekend, and Mark Dyrholm, quite appropriately, was given the boot.

The WRA since it's inception has been a somewhat uncomfortable alliance between the fringe far right (anti-gay, anti-Canada) and the more moderate right who are just unhappy with government, particularly those in the energy industry who have heavily funded the WRA.

Now with Dyrholm out, and the party given the distinctly more moderate flavor of Danielle Smith, it will be very interesting to say where she takes the WRA. No doubt, there will be those on the fringe far right who will bail, seeing a, gulp, *woman* as leader, who will not take the hard right course of action they demand.

(Recall Dyrholm as having no understanding or interest in understanding climate change issues, and suggesting that we should have referenda to redetermine our place in Canada.)

Smith, however, is a different sort of leader. She is careful to walk the line between the hard and moderate right side of politics, trying to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters. What does she stand for - well, looking to her own website:

Gun Control - well, most of it I would not oppose philosophically. However, as she alludes to, gun control is currently a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction and there is, in reality, almost nothing the Provincial government can do to interfere with that. It might be noted that the criminal law regarding gun control has already been declared constitutional, and, as such, other than lobbying Ottawa, which our government has been doing, taking most of the steps advocated by Smith will be pointless and result in significant expenditures in legal challenges that will, doubtlessly, be unsuccessful, but will look good to the right side of the political spectrum;

Property Rights - clearly, Smith understands the need to have the right of expropriate for broad public benefit projects, and not to be prevented from doing so. So, to clarify for her supporters, when Danielle talks about "property rights", she is not talking about taking away government rights of expropriation. Under current legislation, such rights also obligate the government to compensate the land-owner for the value of property taken. What Smith proposes, however, is expanding that right of compensation no only to land taken, but also for other land "devalued".

Think about that. When a highway moves, not only do YOU, the taxpayer, have to pay for the land taken - but, in theory, for EVERY LANDOWNER who wants to argue that their property, while not taken, is "devalued" will be entitled to have a hearing, and arbitration, with rights of appeal, to argue they should get some money from YOU as the taxpayer. Considering the concerns of the WRA with fiscal accountability, one might question opening up this can of worms.

Energy Industry - this is where the big boys support the WRA. Danielle's policy suggests that the current royalty framework is "excessively punitive". Danielle and the WRA want to roll back royalty changes to make the removal of our resources cheaper for the oil industry, even though every measure of compensation I have been able to see makes it clear that our royalty framework is still among the lowest in the major petroleum producing nations. With the sole exception of the U.S.. the same party who suggests to Albertans that our MLA's have been overly generous with their own salaries, are suggesting the current royalty regime is too generous to the province.

You know, I'm no economist, but when it comes to our budget, I think most Albertans can understand that making our MLA's the FIFTH highest paid in Canada will probably not affect our bottom line in nearly as negative a fashion as decreasing the cost of oil to major energy producers. If Danielle suggested, "Let's keep our MLA's and our Oil Producers at a mid-point for compensation" we would have our salaries for MLA's stay where they are at and oil royalties would actually go up, not go down as the WRA suggests.

Health Care - nothing in her policy seems outrageous or inappropriate. Her plan, if elected? "One of Danielle’s first acts as party leader will be to appoint a qualified task force to identify successful models from elsewhere that will work in Alberta." So. She's going to have a study. And maybe the study will say that what we're doing is appropriate, and maybe it wont' Guess we'll wait for the study to find out.

Environment - typical government speak - and to be honest, I think the PC party could strongly improve it's position on this point and if there was an Achilles heal of the party, it might be the lack of strong environmental protection policies. We have an excellent water strategy, as far as it goes, but we could be much stronger on steps taken against those breaching appropriate environmental standards. Fortunately for the PC party, however, the WRA is pretty much onside with lots of platitudes, but no real effort to curb environmental hazards.

Smith writes "Alberta companies have an enviable record of developing environmentally friendly processes and technologies for resource extraction and harvesting. Alberta should be a champion for these innovations and focus on ways to streamline the green-technology patent process, to assist in the export of this technology to other countries that currently do not produce or use hydrocarbon fuels in a sustainable manner." Uh. What exactly does that mean? Clearly it doesn't mean carbon capture techonology as she wants to do away with the government support of that - in it's place, she wants the government to support.. uh.. well, she doesn't say. I guess it's support to "develop environmentally friendly process and technologies for resource extraction, but not to include carbon capture." Ok. So we know what you don't support - what, specifically DO you support. Or is this a way of saying, "we're environmentally conscious, but we don't want to actually do anything about it."

Again - I'm not crowing about current Alberta efforts - but, there's really nothing to distinguish the WRA from current plans. Likely equates with "same old".

On the specific issue of Climate Change, "The debate on the contribution of man made carbon dioxide to global warming remains unsettled, and we should continue to hear from all sides." Maybe so, if you don't buy into the IPCC, but, there is no recognition of how we reconcile that with the position of the U.S. and other trading partners.

Democratic Reform - Danielle advocates repeal of the ability of the HRC to prevent free speech on political issues. On this point, I am in full support, and on this point I myself have voiced my displeasure with Minister Blackett. In this effort, she would have my unqualified support.

On other points, however, I am less enthusiastic. She wants to repeal a bill banning third party advertising. She suggests that is a "free speech" issue. In some respects, I guess I would agree - but the point of this bill is to prevent the well-funded from "buying" an election. If there is ONE insidious attack on the democratic process, it is the ability of money to buy advertising, to buy electoral success. Alberta is the only province without limits on party donations. Not only should we not allow highly funded third parties from interfering with the democratic process, we should also limit party donations. I am very surprised that a "grassroots" party would seek to do something that is so at odds with that concept.

EVERY Albertan should have a platform to voice their opinions - not just those with the most money. Perhaps because of their connection with the Oil Industry, the WRA has included this in their platform. I think it is going backwards, away from a "one person, one vote" concept, towards the support of corporate manipulation of the voting process. And it's not just about big industry - it also comes from the other side of politics. Millions of dollars are donated to the Suzuki foundation by Liberal supporters federally, and David Suzuki gets in his bus and drives around Canada crowing about how terrible Stephen Harper is and how we should not vote for him.

Free speech is one thing - allowing millions of dollars to be spent to influence government is one area where a restriction on free speech is paramount if we don't want to lose our democracy to special interest groups - from the left or the right.

Fixed Election Dates - I have no opposition to and have supported our government doing the same - a step which I believe the Alberta government will, in due course, endorse. Currently, however, for good or bad, it's not a major priority.

Direct Democracy - recall of MLA's, demands for referenda on spending initiatives. I'm a little on the fence about this. On the one hand, it allows for direct responsibility to the electorate, on the other hand, it can be a costly and time-consuming process that, if abused, could result in policy being mired in quicksand before it can be implemented. I come down on the side of efficiency. We vote in a government - to have them manage the Province - and I would as soon let them govern and take them to task on voting day, as opposed to seeking to have a government under the constant pressure of trying to appease everyone with an agenda.

Senate Elections - we are the only province currently electing our Senate representatives. Danielle Smith makes no change, other than with regard to fixing the election dates (see above).

Current opinion? Really, nothing remarkable, but, that being said, nothing frightening either. Some issues I think are approached in a somewhat naive manner, but for the most part, I can't take too much issue. I suppose my summary of Danielle Smith would be best summed up as "PC Lite".