This is a wonderful example of the WWW and the Internet at its best.
Take the itme to watch it, think about it and share it.Wednesday, December 05, 2007
What's the Worst That Can Happen???
This video and the straight forward analysis of climate change and our possible responses to it is compelling. It is clear and straighforward in dealing with waht most of us see has a very complex issue.
Paul Jackson, Calgary Sun Columnist, Flip Flops on Support for Chandler
Jim Brown, the host of the Calgary CBC Radio One morning show the “Calgary Eye Opener” does a professional job today in interviewing Paul Jackson of the Calgary Sun. It is all about Mr. Brown trying to get a rational explanation from Mr. Jackson over certain events and some clarity as to where he actually stands on supporting Mr. Chandler's political aspirations.
The interview topic is how Mr. Jackson was apparently the victim of a crank call from the office of the Premier of Alberta. Mr. Jackson, a seasoned journalist, says he received a phone call from some one who did not give him their name. Mr. Jackson says he did not recognize the voice as anyone he knew from the Premier's office. The anonymous caller claimed to be from the Premier's office was apparently calling Mr. Jackson asking him to support a candidate in the Calgary Egmont PC nomination. That candidate was not Mr. Chandler.
The interview topic is how Mr. Jackson was apparently the victim of a crank call from the office of the Premier of Alberta. Mr. Jackson, a seasoned journalist, says he received a phone call from some one who did not give him their name. Mr. Jackson says he did not recognize the voice as anyone he knew from the Premier's office. The anonymous caller claimed to be from the Premier's office was apparently calling Mr. Jackson asking him to support a candidate in the Calgary Egmont PC nomination. That candidate was not Mr. Chandler.
Mr. Jackson acknowledges writing a column supporting the "other" candidate but "as a courtesy" he sent an email to Mr. Chandler advising him of the "call" from the Premier's office. Mr. Chandler jumps on this "opportunity" and goes to the media claiming interference by the Premier's office in his nomination bid. It gets even sillier and there is more, but best you listen to the whole radio interview and form your own opinions.
Putting the two events together and you are left wondering how a seasoned journalist like Jackson could become woven into such a tangled web of circumstances. Trying to square Mr. Jackson’s circle as he explains on the CBC what really happened and where he really stands on Mr. Chandler as a political candidate is a tad challenging to follow. Given the events, you can understand Mr. Chandler's astonishment at these events and what appears to be Mr. Jackson's inexplicable personal expression of cognitive dissonance. And these gentlemen share the same ideological base - way out there on the far right.
Mr. Jackson notes he has been in the media business for 43 years. Based on these performances and his explanation of events the kindest comment one can come up with is to suggest at the very least Mr. Jackson needs some serious media training.
Mr. Jackson notes he has been in the media business for 43 years. Based on these performances and his explanation of events the kindest comment one can come up with is to suggest at the very least Mr. Jackson needs some serious media training.
Is the Ethics Committee Lobbying Schreiber?
I watched the Ethics Committee meeting last night on CPAC. My observations are that the committee members are in effect lobbying Mr. Schreiber looking for answers that fit their preconceived theories or their preferred outcomes of what went on between himself and Mr. Mulroney.
The weakest contributions were from the Bloc. They are ill prepared and only want to link Charest in some way. They are playing for the home crowd politically in Quebec and not really concerned about the larger issues here.
The Liberals are at sea, not sure what they want to ask and although Mr. Goodale was more focused and capable than most yesterday. He even gave the media the document reference from a 1985 policy on what politicians could or could not do after leaving office. Smart move!
The Cons are all about damage control and narrowing the focus of the process to keep the story short and away from Mr. Harper. They are trying avoid anyone using a “sniff” test to measure the appropriateness of these goings-on. They are single-mindedly out to distance Harper from Mulroney.
In fact Mr. Tilson, a Con on the committee, has already declared Mr. Mulroney exonerated based solely on one day of testimony in the disjointed and restricted questioning the committee process. And he has not even read the documents yet but is trying to convince us Mulroney is already off the hook. The Cons in committee are about damage control, sticking to the message and spin to innoculate thier leader from any infection Mulroney might bring. Expect them to be focused on being narrow and shallow and misdirecting attention to the bigger picture.
The NDP is doing the best job. Mr. Martin’s seething anger is genuine but not helpful at this stage of the proceedings. He wants to nail anyone and everyone involved and his rhetoric is getting away on him. I appreciate his zeal but it may let his quarry off the hook if he does not use a more calculated and less emotional approach.
The NDP’s Mr. Mulcair is new to the House of Commons, winning a recent by-election. He is also new the federal committee processes and rules but is by far the best and most effective interrogators so far. Finding out yesterday that the RCMP did not even contact Mr. Schreiber over Airbus and when the settlement of the defamation action with Mr. Mulroney was negotiated is astounding. That critical piece of evidence is thanks to Mr. Mulcair. I wonder where that will lead especially given all the other troubling incidences we have seen from the RCMP of late.
Finally the best performance by a country mile is the Chair, Mr. Paul Szabo. Fair-minded, respectful, tempered and generous of spirit, he is doing an excellent job. Reading the apology into the record yesterday over the shabby and disgraceful treatment Mr. Schreiber received is the measure of Mr. Szabo. He took the time to carefully detail the disgraceful treatment Mr. Schreiber suffered while going to his home to retrieve documents he remained handcuffed, surrounded by police and was not given his belt back. Those circumstances caused a affront to Mr. Schreiber’s personal dignity on national television. The apology by Mr. Szabo to Mr. Schreiber for that embarrassing and humiliating incident on behalf of all Canadians was appropriate and necessary.
The weakest contributions were from the Bloc. They are ill prepared and only want to link Charest in some way. They are playing for the home crowd politically in Quebec and not really concerned about the larger issues here.
The Liberals are at sea, not sure what they want to ask and although Mr. Goodale was more focused and capable than most yesterday. He even gave the media the document reference from a 1985 policy on what politicians could or could not do after leaving office. Smart move!
The Cons are all about damage control and narrowing the focus of the process to keep the story short and away from Mr. Harper. They are trying avoid anyone using a “sniff” test to measure the appropriateness of these goings-on. They are single-mindedly out to distance Harper from Mulroney.
In fact Mr. Tilson, a Con on the committee, has already declared Mr. Mulroney exonerated based solely on one day of testimony in the disjointed and restricted questioning the committee process. And he has not even read the documents yet but is trying to convince us Mulroney is already off the hook. The Cons in committee are about damage control, sticking to the message and spin to innoculate thier leader from any infection Mulroney might bring. Expect them to be focused on being narrow and shallow and misdirecting attention to the bigger picture.
The NDP is doing the best job. Mr. Martin’s seething anger is genuine but not helpful at this stage of the proceedings. He wants to nail anyone and everyone involved and his rhetoric is getting away on him. I appreciate his zeal but it may let his quarry off the hook if he does not use a more calculated and less emotional approach.
The NDP’s Mr. Mulcair is new to the House of Commons, winning a recent by-election. He is also new the federal committee processes and rules but is by far the best and most effective interrogators so far. Finding out yesterday that the RCMP did not even contact Mr. Schreiber over Airbus and when the settlement of the defamation action with Mr. Mulroney was negotiated is astounding. That critical piece of evidence is thanks to Mr. Mulcair. I wonder where that will lead especially given all the other troubling incidences we have seen from the RCMP of late.
Finally the best performance by a country mile is the Chair, Mr. Paul Szabo. Fair-minded, respectful, tempered and generous of spirit, he is doing an excellent job. Reading the apology into the record yesterday over the shabby and disgraceful treatment Mr. Schreiber received is the measure of Mr. Szabo. He took the time to carefully detail the disgraceful treatment Mr. Schreiber suffered while going to his home to retrieve documents he remained handcuffed, surrounded by police and was not given his belt back. Those circumstances caused a affront to Mr. Schreiber’s personal dignity on national television. The apology by Mr. Szabo to Mr. Schreiber for that embarrassing and humiliating incident on behalf of all Canadians was appropriate and necessary.
Are the White Supremacists Upset?
I see the recent decision by the PC Party of Alberta to reject a Calgary nominee for has made the "big time" with the White Supremacists. This link came to my Inbox today. The story entitled “Christians, They’re Coming for You!” is the specific reference on this site Stormfront.org. If this connection is any indication of who the PC Party would be associated with, I have to say the Party sure made the right decision on Saturday. For the record and to be fair, there is no indication that Mr. Chandler is in anyway associated with Stormfront.
The posting facts are quite accurate – only one quibble in that while the Executive Committee meeting went on for 4 hours, not all of that time was dedicated to dealing with the nomination decision as implied. But that is a quibble. The tone of the story is an entirely different matter.
There is some "good news." I checked out the Threads on the site. At the time of writing this post Mr. Fromm’s piece has not generated much interest, Zero Replies and 57 visits, including me I expect. A piece on Calgary Tattoo Shops posted 3 hours earlier had 21 replies and 604 visits. Not sure what that means or says about the readership of this site but it is an interesting comparison.
The website invites you to download the weekly radio show of Dr. David Duke. Suspecting he is the same David Duke of Ku Klux Klan fame, I resisted.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
PC Party Should Learn From the Chandler Experience and Fix Its Nomination and Leadership Process
The right decision was made by the PC Party Executive Committee on Mr. Chandler’s suitability for candidacy in the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. The matter is not over. Beyond Mr. Chandler’s indications he may sue the Party for his nomination costs which he says are $127,000.00, the PC Party needs to revisit its nomination and leadership selection processes.
The PC Party, and other political parties too I expect, need to review their nomination process in the light of expectations of accountability, transparency and fairness. Premier Stelmach promised the Party would review and fix the leadership process. Let’s kill two birds and deal with the nomination process at the same time.
Let’s learn from the Chandler experience and do some Constitutional updating. First fairness. If the Leader or the Party Executive has reservations about a candidate pursuing nomination perhaps we need to take a page from the federal CPCs and have a questionnaire and statutory declaration completed by each candidate before they are eligible to run. We can confidentially get a sense of their background and skeletons, if any, and judge their suitability up front. We should not have to rely on Dr. Oberg for this information on skeletons. A suitability test and a decision could be made without embarrassing anyone.
Second, we need full disclosure of donors and perhaps limits on nomination campaign spending to level the playing field and for transparency. If Mr. Chandler spent $127,000.00 for about 950 votes, how did he spend it? Did he buy every supporter dinner in a nice restaurant? For that money? He could have.
Who ponied up $127,000 in the first place? Spending that kind of money at this level of the political process shows that Mr. Chandler is clearly only a social conservative...he is no fiscal conservative, that is for sure. Can you imagine how he might spend of our tax money if he were in government? We need to clean this matter up in the leadership process too. We have been waiting about a year and still don't know who supported Do. Oberg's leadership despite his promise to disclose donors. Dr. Morton said he will not disclose his leadership campaign donors and under the current Party rules - he is entitled to that entitlement. Not good enough.
We have some fixin’ to do in the PC Party around our nomination and leadership processes. This is up to the Party not the leader to undertake this job. Let’s get at it.
The PC Party, and other political parties too I expect, need to review their nomination process in the light of expectations of accountability, transparency and fairness. Premier Stelmach promised the Party would review and fix the leadership process. Let’s kill two birds and deal with the nomination process at the same time.
Let’s learn from the Chandler experience and do some Constitutional updating. First fairness. If the Leader or the Party Executive has reservations about a candidate pursuing nomination perhaps we need to take a page from the federal CPCs and have a questionnaire and statutory declaration completed by each candidate before they are eligible to run. We can confidentially get a sense of their background and skeletons, if any, and judge their suitability up front. We should not have to rely on Dr. Oberg for this information on skeletons. A suitability test and a decision could be made without embarrassing anyone.
Second, we need full disclosure of donors and perhaps limits on nomination campaign spending to level the playing field and for transparency. If Mr. Chandler spent $127,000.00 for about 950 votes, how did he spend it? Did he buy every supporter dinner in a nice restaurant? For that money? He could have.
Who ponied up $127,000 in the first place? Spending that kind of money at this level of the political process shows that Mr. Chandler is clearly only a social conservative...he is no fiscal conservative, that is for sure. Can you imagine how he might spend of our tax money if he were in government? We need to clean this matter up in the leadership process too. We have been waiting about a year and still don't know who supported Do. Oberg's leadership despite his promise to disclose donors. Dr. Morton said he will not disclose his leadership campaign donors and under the current Party rules - he is entitled to that entitlement. Not good enough.
We have some fixin’ to do in the PC Party around our nomination and leadership processes. This is up to the Party not the leader to undertake this job. Let’s get at it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)