Be Careful Who You Elect

President George W. Bush recently signed a Bill called the Military Commissions Act that can (amongst other things) be used to dispense with Habeas Corpus. That is the right to be brought before a judge to determine the lawfulness of one's arrest. This is no longer the legal right in the USA for anyone the American government declares to be a threat under the label of "alien, undocumented immigrant or unlawful enemy combatant."

Free speech is a right of a freedom and democratic society that is oftern taken for granted and even abused on occassion but notwithstanding that it so very important to preserve and protect that right. Watch this video Olbermann to Bush: 'Your Words are Lies that Imperil us All" from MSNBC - not only for its chilling content but as an eloquent example of free speech in action.

Judging by some of the comments in the discussion forums on the Internet over the Militarty Commissions Act, it will not surprise me to start seeing 1960's style protests and marches over civil rights issues in America again. "Dubbya" may just have created his own Viet Nam by signing this Bill.

For any Canadians who may feel quietly smug and superior - don't. You either do not know or have forgotten the part of our history that reflects this kind of leadership and governance in our past. Ask yourself what you would do today if you were Maher Arar.

Considering the power we bestow on politicians when we elect them to positions of leadership or other high office PLEASE, for the sake of our freedoms, make yourself aware about the character of the candidates. Do not just focus on the hype and hyperbole of campaigning. Make your choices carefully and consciously. Your individual freedoms depend on it.

Whopper-mania

There is the practical reality that political candidates perpetually pursue media coverage and often under the mistaken belief that any news coverage is good coverage...so long as they spell your name correctly. The media has taken up the Dinning whopper story hook, line and sinker.

We also have the political landscape full of conspiracy game-theorists who lurk in the shadows and whisper "Mess-ages" in all too eager ears. Then there is the fact half the population has an IQ of under a 100 by definition and are willing to believe just about anything negative about someone with influence or power. Plus a half truth is often more damaging to a candidate than a full blown lie - because at least a lie can be disproved and will eventually disappear whereas a half truth has a seemingly eternal half-life.

We have seen the Dinning campaign determined to dispel the half truths and full blown lies about their candidates intentions, ideas, background and even his profession in a media feeding Whoppergate fashion.

So I was wondering in my own mischievous way, what if the other candidates were to try to garner media attention by fabricating their own whoppers about themselves. That would create the need for them "to clarify the misinformation" and the media would lap it up.

Sounds like a plan right? What might that look like - I asked myself? Lets have some fun! Nothing I have said here is true - although it may be factual - for which I guess I need to apologize for my bad spinmeistering.

What if the latest Dinning Dunning Myth Buster was:
"Jim Dinning is not a lawyer - neither is Michael Ritter."

Victor Doerksen confirms there is no evidence of intelligent design behind his campaign platform and his leadership bid is evolving and unraveling as it should.

Dr. Lyle Oberg says there is no truth to the allegations that he is suffering from sympathetic labour pains and states unequivocally that he never screwed a union - except maybe the ATA - but they were asking for it.

There is no truth to the rumour that Gary McPherson secretly wants to be Rick Hanson but there is growing evidence that Rick Hanson would like to be Gary McPherson.

The similarities between Rev. Jerry Falwell and Dr. Ted Morton are mere coincidence - really! Dr. Ted is much more like Rev. Pat Robertson - at least he wanted to be President.

Ed Stelmach has a secret passion for Ukrainian food and has been known to giggle in public, even when being taken seriously.

Mark Norris does not think the fact that he is first political incumbent in North America to lose his seat to a Muslim after 9-11 in a constituency with a large Jewish population means he can't gain the ordinary voters confidence in the rest of Alberta in order to become the Premier.

Dave Hancock has had to admit publicly to being a lawyer and with the arrogance that is so typical of that profession - he has refused to deny it or even explain why he is a lawyer.

I hope people will enjoy this post for the "entertainment" purposes I have intended; but that they can also see the danger in this stuff. It shows again why facts may be interesting they are almost irrelevant in the formation of opinions and impressions. It is how you frame the issues and how you activate values in the voter that makes the difference between winning and losing. People vote their values and beliefs - even those who are not voting are actually still expressing their values and beliefs, be they disdain or indifference. The far right in the USA has mastered this black art of contemporary politics very well and some Alberta candidates are well into it too.
I like what Duncan at Phendrana Drifts has said about myths and misdirections. Check his post out too. This whopper and conspiracy stuff is so powerfulbecasue it can be damaging to candidates and very dangerous to democracy. As Reagan said to Gorbachev "Of course I trust you, but I always like to verify what you have said." Good advice and a sound approach for citizens to take towards politics these days.

Except for Hancock and Stelmach....

Except for Dave Hancock and Ed Stelmach it seems every other candidate is someone that more and more people are becoming increasingly afraid of for whatever reasons. Some reasons are legit and some are fabricated. If you believe some of the commentary in the blogosphere about the so called Dinning 14 Whoppers – even the fabricated reasons were “fabricated.” The conspiracy goes that his supporters are doing this to divert attention from “other issues” they “presumably” don’t want to be exposed. Smoke, mirrors and pockets full of petty mumblers is mostly what I am seeing. Politics by misdirection and misinformation! Pathetic isn’t it!

Will anyone emerge from the campaign pack with personal character, qualities and values that actually gets us engaged in thinking about the future possibilities and potential of Alberta for the benefit of all Albertans? Instead we see the emergence of the not entirely unjustifiable fear, in some cases, of some candidates who are self aggrandizing power-mongers, or narrow minded ideologues, presumptive and assumptive obvious winners, or the simply hapless and hopeless. Only Hancock and Stelmach appear to be above all this and seem to personally grasp the true essence of the leadership role in a representative democracy – that is of being the servant leader.

We campaign and govern by the systemic discouraging of debate, dialogue and informed dissent. Just go to the newspapers tomorrow and visit Garth Turner’s blog and see what happens to free speech and democratic discourse in regimes of centralized top down message controlling mean spirited leadership. We centralize power in party leaders and their entourage of unelected, faceless and yet enormously powerful political advisors. For the sake of efficiency in power politics we forsake citizenship and representative democracy as a consequence.

I am tired of the hypocrisy and the systemic self serving side of politics. I want someone who aspires to leadership who will give me a reason to believe again…not naively or pseudo-intellectually – but rather a sincere hopeful belief that is brimming with enthusiasm, curiosity, authenticity and imagination. I don’t expect some super human capacity as a precondition of leadership. I expect humility and human decency as my precondition for leadership.

I want someone to lead Alberta with a view beyond the next election cycle. Some one who can listen to gather information and opinion and then synthesize the information to make it useful and accessible to me. I want them bright enough that they can know enough about an issue and can explain it in context. I want someone who knows how to be reflective, thoughtful and is able to comprehend and evaluate alternative inputs and then come up with useful knowledge and some workable ideas.

Then I want someone with the wisdom to make profoundly important choices – not perfect choices - but who will be able to pick an alternative with sound reasons and actually know why they make the choices they do. Then I want them to feel obligated to explain the choices and reasons behind them to me and, if necessary, take the time to try to convince me that they have done the right thing and for the right reasons. For me the right reason includes doing the most good for the most people with the least damage to the environment while enhancing our social cohesion as a province and a country.

Then they have to be forceful enough and able to push and pull the levers of government to create a plan to achieve the objectives and have the skills to actually execute the plan. Is that too much to expect? It appears to be – but it better not be. Seeing what Harper has wrought in 8 months as pro tem Prime Minister and looking at giving someone 2 years of virtually total control over Alberta before they have to face an election means we best take this PC leadership selection process seriously.

Finally, we desperately need to attract a better quality of person into politics and have them come to serve for better reasons than merely gaining power. To get that better quality person we all need to start treating our quality elected people much better. A little respect would go along way, but only for those who deserve it, obviously. A little more trust and the benefit of the doubt would be nice for who consistently work to earn our respect. That would be nice too. I remember as a lawyer, virtually every time the phone rang it was going to be a dispute or problem. It wears on you after a while. I never recall anybody ever saying to me “Gosh, what a great day I’m having, I thought I’d call my lawyer.” I expect politicians feel much the same way.

The Dunning of Dinning

I find the dirty tricks and misinformation campaigns the most difficult part of politics. Jim Dinning is taking the offence about some alleged misinformation about his intentions and “facts” about him that he says are false. The usual political consultant “wisdom” about such things is they ought not be repeated because doing so merely reinforces the original negative message and impressions.

The textbook example was the allegations about Richard Nixon being a “crook” and his numerous protestations to the contrary saying “I am not a crook” served only to add to the doubts in the public’s mind about his being fit to govern. In the end, with Watergate, he turned out to be a crook. The collective wisdom (or pooled ignorance) ever since is for the candidate not to repeat the remarks or the allegations because it merely serve to reinforce the original negative impressions…but that is what Jim is doing here and the media, including this Blog, is potentially simply reinforcing the negative story.

It comes down to what messages stick with the busy disengaged or the only partially engaged public from such “news” and “allegations.” We seem to hook on to bad news and remember it – even if we only vaguely recall what it was about - but we do seem to "remember" that it was negative – and that is the problem.

The difficulty is how our minds work and the kind of “attention” we pay in our overly mediated world. When you are told “do not think of a white horse” what image comes into your mind? A white horse, of course! When that “message” gets repeated to us again and again, especially when we are not sufficiently engaged in the message or concerned much about its meaning, we get our original impressions reinforced. We seem to remember that the issue was negative more than we “hear” the correction or the rebuttal. By the candidate repeating the message in rebuttal or in a correction, the theory is the original negative message is what gets reinforced in the public mind and not the correction. That is why correction and apologies in the media are nice to have but almost totally ineffectual in changing the original incorrect perception as to the “facts.”

The same kind of thing happened in 1992 leadership race on the Betkowski and Klein campaigns. There were whispered allegations throughout the countryside that if Betkowski won she would be shutting down rural hospitals. It was widely promoted and vigorously denied but the damage was done. Rural Albertans started to fear what would happen to them if the province were run by, what some called, “that uppity educated city woman.” Ouch! Ironically that fear was not unfounded because that is exactly what Klein did do to many rural hospitals once he was in power.

There were many unsubstantiated claims by anonymous callers that Klein was guilty of spousal abuse. I know, I took many of the calls while working on the Betkowski campaign. None of these callers would give me their names, their lawyer’s name or would commit to swearing an affidavit to evidence their allegations. Each of them wanted me to be reassured however they were honest and forthcoming folks just trying to do the right thing. Such is the downside of politics. I know that Premier Klien is hurt by those allegations even today.

So in this context Jim Dinning is posting rebuttals and corrections about incorrect allegations on his website and the media are writing stories about the “facts” and his responses. I wonder if the times and people have changed since the days of Richard Nixon or is Dinning’s approach merely reinforcing the negative impressions and not effectively correcting the record.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. Damned politics.

So You Think You Know Canada Eh!

Here is some Sunday night silliness for you amusement and perhaps chagrin...I suffered from both feelings after taking the quiz because my score was embarassingly low. I will not chastise any comments that are Ananymous regarding this post or the quiz - honestly... really...I mean that! Because I will not tell you my score - I can hardly complain if you tell me how you did and do not what your identity known.

Thanks to the Globe and Mail for this - it is almost enough to make up for my conspiracy theory when they published the Hancock Platform story in the rest of Canada but not in the Alberta edition.