I found out that my suggestion to the Edmonton Glenora PC constituency association to submit a resolution to the Party AGM to repeal the classroom opting out provisions of the new Alberta Human Rights Act, best known as Bill 44, did not make the cut.
There were 4 options presented to the Board members to choose from. After a number of emails trying to find out what happened. I saw the constituency President at the Folk Festival on Thursday night and she told me the results. The Bill 44 repeal resolution was dead last in the Glenora constituency board voting priority. I am not surprised but I am sure disappointed.
It now looks like the last chance to have an AGM debate by the membership of the PC Party on Bill 44 is if the Whitemud constituency makes it happen. But that is not a sure thing either. The party rules are a limit of 2 resolutions per constituency. The Bill 44 resolution in Whitemud was tied for second place with another resolution. So the Whitemud constituency will have to break the tie. The Bill 44 option could be lost in the tie breaker vote.
This is a model example of the problem with party politics. They exist primarily to pursue and preserve political power. That power presumption sometimes trumps things like having a healthy public debate based on competing values and for the sake of good governance. I recall back in the day when Stockwell Day promoted a party resolution to de-insure abortions in Alberta's health care coverage. The resolution was presented, debated, voted on and defeated. The party was stronger for it.
If the PC party accepting that Bill 44 is preferred law and therefore it is not worth debating further, I can accept that. I suppose one can take it on faith that this is the will of the party because no constituency has yet to come forward conclusively to want to test the wisdom of Bill 44 in a resolution debate and a vote. It is very clear that party resolutions are not binding on the Stelmach government. They are merely advice and influential information at best.
That said what are other Albertans to think about the PC Party when people in it will not step up to the plate to speak their minds on contentious issues and government laws? Heaven knows we have seen lots of pressure to abolish the Alberta Human Rights Commission but certain people, many I expect are in the PC Party. That is well established law and a move to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Ironically everyone on all sides of the Alberta political spectrum agreed that the hate speech provisions of the Human Rights legislation in Alberta should go but it survived the legislation review process. GO figure. That must be an example of the old joke that you don't really what to know how sausages or how laws are made.
What are political parties good for as institutions in the larger scheme of our democracy if not to find their truths and to bring their truth to the powers that be in their party and the government. All it can do is make them better and stronger.
It is clear to me that the powers that be in the PC party and the PC government clearly want the embarrassment of Bill 44 to be forgotten and to just go away, rather than to try and fix the mistake. That is a naive political hope. It will not happen. This travesty will not be forgiven or forgotten by the majority of Albertans who find Bill 44 to be a discriminatory unnecessary and abusive law.
I guess fixing this problem is now up to the citizens of Alberta. The next opportunity for that correction of Bill 44 to happen will be in 3 more years; at the next election. Thanks to Bill 44 an awful lot of serious damage can happen to our schools, our children, our education system and out teachers between then and now.
Monday, August 10, 2009
YouTube Duck Poachers Arrested.
It is good news to see that the goofballs who illegally shot a bunch of ducks on a remote pond have been arrested. These jerks, who took great glee in killing these birds for not good reason, also posted the video of the event on YouTube.
They are in such serious trouble and they should be. The Globe an Mail story as of 10:15 am today had a 175 comments already. The Sun papers are carrying a story about their "apology" saying they had "never been in trouble before" and they "did not know it was a crime."
Come off it guys, how hollow, shallow and unctuous can you be.
These accused are rural young men in their 20s and a 30 year old who already fessed up that they are the ones in the video. They are not teenage boys out on a prank. They surely knew or ought to know what poaching is and that there is an actual duck hunting season. They own guns and one would hope they have been properly trained in their use and informed as to when guns are to be use for legitimate hunting purposes. This was thoughtless useless killing just for the fun of watching those birds die.
Hunters and wildlife conservationists share many common values about wildlife. These guys have done so much harm to legitimate sport hunters image that they are not going to get of with an apology for the useless slaughter of these ducks.
I am not surprised by the public loathing and seething anger at these guys. We have done two major research projects with over 4000 Albertans in each case. the study was on what are predominant value drivers of Albertans around the forestry and oil sands industries. In both cases preservation of wildlife and protection of their habitat was the #1 value driver for Albertans. We saw the international outrage when the ducks died in the Syncrude tailing pond over a year ago. The same outrage will be visited on these guys.
The penalties they potentially face are severe, depending on what laws they are charged under. The Migratory Birds Convention Act carries fines between $300,000 and $1,000,000 and up to 6 months in jail. The Saskatchewan Wildlife Act is another place were charges will likely be laid but I don't know the penalty sections there.
The wanton disregard for the law and the feeble excuses they have offered so far will do little to mitigate the damage they have done or the public outrage against this kind of behaviour. These dolts put their video up on YouTube for all to see. Social media is such a game changer in how our society is changing and learning about stuff. Some of it is mindless drivel but it also helps bring people to justice as in this case.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Contempt of Court Aside, Were the Best Interests of the Child Served?
My blog post on the recent Alberta Court of Appeal contempt of court decision against the former Children and Youth Services Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement has been drawing lots of attention. Feedback has come for inside at the GOA political level and senior administrative levels. The Deputy Minister even commented on the blog post and I know that the Minister has read the post as well.
I have also been getting some very helpful information sent my way from anonymous sources on events and issues that relate to the problems in the department and public documents that add more context to the issues. This information is coming to be from both inside and outside government. I have also been challenged by many folks and friends to go further and look deeper into the matter by reading all the court filings. They have suggest I do more blogging on the background of this case so people can get a better handle on the issues and incidences and help better understand how the children at risk system works and how well it works in Alberta.
I know that last week the various legal counsel involved had to submit written argument as to what penalty they would advice the court should be imposed on the former Director. I was intending to at least read those when they were made public and to post about them. As well I will be posting on the final penalty pronouncement by the Court of Appeal on the contempt of court.
That is all from the Court of Appeal level only. To go all the way back into this case involves a great deal of time but it would likely shed more light on how the system attended to and how well it served the best interests of this child. That is what is really at the heart of the matter after all.
There is the prior Appeal Panel decision, various reports, affidavits and the Queens Bench decision to deal with too. Lots of material will be available to review and relate to I am sure. This is matter has been the subject of a very extensive process with lots of twists and turns. Contempt of court is a very serious matter but it is actually a sidebar to the real issues. Has the government processes and the courts done its job in serving the best interests of the child? I am no expert and not in a position to pass judgment on all of this. However, just like any other citizen I am entitled to know the facts and to draw my own conclusions about the answers to these questions.
So here is my question to you gentle reader. Do you, as a reader of this blog, want to know more about the facts and findings behind this child custody and contempt of court matter? If so why is it important to you to know more? If you tell me by email to ken@cambridgestrategies.com or by comments on this blog to go further and deeper on this matter I will. If there is no interest then I will just wait for the court to decide on the contempt penalty before I say more.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
I have also been getting some very helpful information sent my way from anonymous sources on events and issues that relate to the problems in the department and public documents that add more context to the issues. This information is coming to be from both inside and outside government. I have also been challenged by many folks and friends to go further and look deeper into the matter by reading all the court filings. They have suggest I do more blogging on the background of this case so people can get a better handle on the issues and incidences and help better understand how the children at risk system works and how well it works in Alberta.
I know that last week the various legal counsel involved had to submit written argument as to what penalty they would advice the court should be imposed on the former Director. I was intending to at least read those when they were made public and to post about them. As well I will be posting on the final penalty pronouncement by the Court of Appeal on the contempt of court.
That is all from the Court of Appeal level only. To go all the way back into this case involves a great deal of time but it would likely shed more light on how the system attended to and how well it served the best interests of this child. That is what is really at the heart of the matter after all.
There is the prior Appeal Panel decision, various reports, affidavits and the Queens Bench decision to deal with too. Lots of material will be available to review and relate to I am sure. This is matter has been the subject of a very extensive process with lots of twists and turns. Contempt of court is a very serious matter but it is actually a sidebar to the real issues. Has the government processes and the courts done its job in serving the best interests of the child? I am no expert and not in a position to pass judgment on all of this. However, just like any other citizen I am entitled to know the facts and to draw my own conclusions about the answers to these questions.
So here is my question to you gentle reader. Do you, as a reader of this blog, want to know more about the facts and findings behind this child custody and contempt of court matter? If so why is it important to you to know more? If you tell me by email to ken@cambridgestrategies.com or by comments on this blog to go further and deeper on this matter I will. If there is no interest then I will just wait for the court to decide on the contempt penalty before I say more.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Why Tiny Perfect Blog was Anonymous is as Important as Who Tiny Perfect Blog Was.
What are we to take from the hasty retreat of Tiny Perfect Blog from cyberspace? Graham Thomson's column today adds some valuable perspective. Lots of people have been nosing around trying to uncover the true identity of TPB. It all seems like some kind of cyber scavenger hunt in search of a virtual prize of discovery and disclosure.
There is a growing "consensus" as to who it is but that is mostly driven by speculation and without any substantial evidence. That speculation will likely coalesce into urban myth and become reality in the mind space many who care about such things - regardless of the absence of substantiating facts. The lawyer in me simply wants the facts to be determined before the conclusion is reached. But in the court of public opinion that is not always the way things are decided.
The larger context around why TPB went into a self-induced virtual witness protection program is worth a few reflections. The rise and rapid growth of social media and the power shift of influence going from institutions to individuals is a significant social, political and emerging economic change. That is the larger backdrop to the legend of TPB. TPB had an audience and some influence so who was actually behind the blog has/had relevance.
Social media sites like Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Youtube are influential creating phenomena, each in their own right. I want to focus this post on the social media influence of blogging because TPB was, after all, a blogger. Blogging exploded a few years ago with millions of new blogs coming out of nowhere and showing up everywhere. Blogging was one of the earlier indications of this shift of influence from institutions to individuals who could now actually impact public agendas and how power was being exercised, especially political power. Remember the Drudge Report and Monica Lewinsky?
The blogosphere was and still is the "wild west" in many ways. It has settled back and now there are many abandoned and vacant blogs as the fad phase has worn off. Many early blogger left the scene as they came to the realization that it is hard work, demanded time and took discipline. Those political bloggers who have persisted, and now still prevail, have found and created significant audiences that are growing and becoming more engaged. Traditional media now references and relies on us almost as much as we reference and rely on them.
Both traditional and new mediums are adapting to grapple with this shift to horizontal interactive networked connectivity. The old media model of vertical integration, one-way communications, gatekeeper control of the political information and the public agenda is proving obsolete and uneconomical. Newspapers are having the toughest time adapting. Conventional television is also struggling. Private radio vacated much of the news gathering mode years ago when it turned to "talk" formats that are usually more voluminous than luminous in their content and news approach.
Political blogs are changing dramatically too. I really only know about Alberta so I will concentrate my comments in that context but I expect some observations can be generalized. There are fewer and fewer active political bloggers in Alberta these days. A scan of the Alberta Blog Roll sidebar of this blog will underscore that fact. Alberta political blogging is now "maturing" in marketing terms but I am not so sure that is as true in content and context terms. That lack of content and context maturity for blogs brings us back to consider Tiny Perfect Blog and the circumstances and apparent reasoning for the abrupt removal of the blog site.
I will not cover the same ground Graham Thomson did today and I will try to focus on the implications for blogging as a legitimate activity in support of a vibrant effective democracy. Mostly I think the TPB demise underscores the need for more citizens to learn some media literacy, especially in the social media realm, and with political blogs in particular.
Polls tell us traditional media has forfeited much of its presumption of authenticity and authority as a reliable new source. Many think political blogs never had any such presumptions about its reliability and authoritativeness. I think that was true back in the day, but it less true today. I see surviving political bloggers becoming more prolific, noticed, read and trusted as they move towards a more fact based approach in their posts. I say this not so much as a comment about a leveling of the playing field to the mutual discredit of traditional and social media. It is more of a comment to show the need for readers and viewers to be skeptical and cautious about what they choose to believe and what they rely on from all media sources, traditional or social.
When it comes to social media sources, and bloggers especially, if they are anonymous you have to wonder if they can be trusted and relied upon. A blog has to have a voice, a perspective and a lens to make it worth reading, becoming engaged with and even commenting on. Bloggers are more about providing commentary and observation than publishing hard news. There are exceptions when every now and then a blogger will "break" a news story. But for most of us that is not our goal. We do not want to be reporters. We are more akin to columnists and editorialists.
So if you don't know the identity of the person behind the voice, their perspective and their personal lens on the world, why would you believe anything they are saying? Given the content and context of the TPB posts and how they quickly slithered away once someone threatened to lift up the rock they were under, you tend want to question to motives of the person who wrote the blog. A cone of silence is around TPB so my guess is we will never know. For the record I don't know who TPB is/was and I would only care if that blogger's anonymity was used as a sword and not a shield. There are many unanswered questions about that concern for sure.
I know the true identity of a number of anonymous or nom de plume Alberta based political bloggers. I have lifted an enjoyable pint with many of them on many occasions. They have identified themselves to me in confidence and I will respect the confidence because I know that they may very well need the shield of anonymity to protect them.
As Daveberta is quoted in Graham's column, this is not China or Iran. BTW if you are Albertan
and don't know who Daveberta is you also must be living under a rock. However there are many powerful forces who find themselves in the blogs. Many are thin skinned, some tend to be bullying and some can even be very vindictive. Just look at the recent declaration of the new health super board that aspires to severely limit the free speech of those citizens working in the Alberta health care sector. You can see why some people in Alberta feel the need to have a shield in order to exercise their free speech rights. Sad but true.
In contrast, after many journalists and apparently some unionists, were trying to determine the true identity of TPB, we have to note that no one has yet been successful. According to Graham Thomson, the only one, so far, who acknowledges that they know the true identity of TPB is Edmonton NDP MLA, Rachel Notley. She is on the record as not "outing" TPB for much the same reasons I would not "out" those anonymous bloggers I know - a prior personal commitment to confidentiality. Am I to presume therefore that TPB was in some kind of position that justified the protection of anonymity? But since nothing is being said to indicate or confirm that need for a shield, one legitimately wonders if other factors are at play, especially given how adept TPB was at brandishing a political sword.
So while TPB is gone, we should not forget the lessons we can learn from his/her disappearance and given the circumstance that surround it. So bottom line, don't trust any media source at face value. In particular one should have a very skeptical eye and ear when the source is anonymous. We will not ever see the end of anonymous sources for traditional media or new media. That said, I personally think their credibility should not be taken seriously - not even with a grain of salt. I urge citizens to learn about media literacy and to keep learning, because one thing for sure, the media like the times, they are a'changing.
So, so long TPB, who ever you are/were or aspired to be. You will not be missed and should not be missed. Your 15 minutes of fame are over. Next!
There is a growing "consensus" as to who it is but that is mostly driven by speculation and without any substantial evidence. That speculation will likely coalesce into urban myth and become reality in the mind space many who care about such things - regardless of the absence of substantiating facts. The lawyer in me simply wants the facts to be determined before the conclusion is reached. But in the court of public opinion that is not always the way things are decided.
The larger context around why TPB went into a self-induced virtual witness protection program is worth a few reflections. The rise and rapid growth of social media and the power shift of influence going from institutions to individuals is a significant social, political and emerging economic change. That is the larger backdrop to the legend of TPB. TPB had an audience and some influence so who was actually behind the blog has/had relevance.
Social media sites like Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Youtube are influential creating phenomena, each in their own right. I want to focus this post on the social media influence of blogging because TPB was, after all, a blogger. Blogging exploded a few years ago with millions of new blogs coming out of nowhere and showing up everywhere. Blogging was one of the earlier indications of this shift of influence from institutions to individuals who could now actually impact public agendas and how power was being exercised, especially political power. Remember the Drudge Report and Monica Lewinsky?
The blogosphere was and still is the "wild west" in many ways. It has settled back and now there are many abandoned and vacant blogs as the fad phase has worn off. Many early blogger left the scene as they came to the realization that it is hard work, demanded time and took discipline. Those political bloggers who have persisted, and now still prevail, have found and created significant audiences that are growing and becoming more engaged. Traditional media now references and relies on us almost as much as we reference and rely on them.
Both traditional and new mediums are adapting to grapple with this shift to horizontal interactive networked connectivity. The old media model of vertical integration, one-way communications, gatekeeper control of the political information and the public agenda is proving obsolete and uneconomical. Newspapers are having the toughest time adapting. Conventional television is also struggling. Private radio vacated much of the news gathering mode years ago when it turned to "talk" formats that are usually more voluminous than luminous in their content and news approach.
Political blogs are changing dramatically too. I really only know about Alberta so I will concentrate my comments in that context but I expect some observations can be generalized. There are fewer and fewer active political bloggers in Alberta these days. A scan of the Alberta Blog Roll sidebar of this blog will underscore that fact. Alberta political blogging is now "maturing" in marketing terms but I am not so sure that is as true in content and context terms. That lack of content and context maturity for blogs brings us back to consider Tiny Perfect Blog and the circumstances and apparent reasoning for the abrupt removal of the blog site.
I will not cover the same ground Graham Thomson did today and I will try to focus on the implications for blogging as a legitimate activity in support of a vibrant effective democracy. Mostly I think the TPB demise underscores the need for more citizens to learn some media literacy, especially in the social media realm, and with political blogs in particular.
Polls tell us traditional media has forfeited much of its presumption of authenticity and authority as a reliable new source. Many think political blogs never had any such presumptions about its reliability and authoritativeness. I think that was true back in the day, but it less true today. I see surviving political bloggers becoming more prolific, noticed, read and trusted as they move towards a more fact based approach in their posts. I say this not so much as a comment about a leveling of the playing field to the mutual discredit of traditional and social media. It is more of a comment to show the need for readers and viewers to be skeptical and cautious about what they choose to believe and what they rely on from all media sources, traditional or social.
When it comes to social media sources, and bloggers especially, if they are anonymous you have to wonder if they can be trusted and relied upon. A blog has to have a voice, a perspective and a lens to make it worth reading, becoming engaged with and even commenting on. Bloggers are more about providing commentary and observation than publishing hard news. There are exceptions when every now and then a blogger will "break" a news story. But for most of us that is not our goal. We do not want to be reporters. We are more akin to columnists and editorialists.
So if you don't know the identity of the person behind the voice, their perspective and their personal lens on the world, why would you believe anything they are saying? Given the content and context of the TPB posts and how they quickly slithered away once someone threatened to lift up the rock they were under, you tend want to question to motives of the person who wrote the blog. A cone of silence is around TPB so my guess is we will never know. For the record I don't know who TPB is/was and I would only care if that blogger's anonymity was used as a sword and not a shield. There are many unanswered questions about that concern for sure.
I know the true identity of a number of anonymous or nom de plume Alberta based political bloggers. I have lifted an enjoyable pint with many of them on many occasions. They have identified themselves to me in confidence and I will respect the confidence because I know that they may very well need the shield of anonymity to protect them.
As Daveberta is quoted in Graham's column, this is not China or Iran. BTW if you are Albertan
and don't know who Daveberta is you also must be living under a rock. However there are many powerful forces who find themselves in the blogs. Many are thin skinned, some tend to be bullying and some can even be very vindictive. Just look at the recent declaration of the new health super board that aspires to severely limit the free speech of those citizens working in the Alberta health care sector. You can see why some people in Alberta feel the need to have a shield in order to exercise their free speech rights. Sad but true.
In contrast, after many journalists and apparently some unionists, were trying to determine the true identity of TPB, we have to note that no one has yet been successful. According to Graham Thomson, the only one, so far, who acknowledges that they know the true identity of TPB is Edmonton NDP MLA, Rachel Notley. She is on the record as not "outing" TPB for much the same reasons I would not "out" those anonymous bloggers I know - a prior personal commitment to confidentiality. Am I to presume therefore that TPB was in some kind of position that justified the protection of anonymity? But since nothing is being said to indicate or confirm that need for a shield, one legitimately wonders if other factors are at play, especially given how adept TPB was at brandishing a political sword.
So while TPB is gone, we should not forget the lessons we can learn from his/her disappearance and given the circumstance that surround it. So bottom line, don't trust any media source at face value. In particular one should have a very skeptical eye and ear when the source is anonymous. We will not ever see the end of anonymous sources for traditional media or new media. That said, I personally think their credibility should not be taken seriously - not even with a grain of salt. I urge citizens to learn about media literacy and to keep learning, because one thing for sure, the media like the times, they are a'changing.
So, so long TPB, who ever you are/were or aspired to be. You will not be missed and should not be missed. Your 15 minutes of fame are over. Next!
Friday, August 07, 2009
Folk Festival Funding Fiasco is About Politics - Pure & Simple
The ham-handed handling of the Conservative stimulus oriented "Marquee Tourism Event" funding so far is political farce in three acts.
Some context on the first act. The Harper Cons contempt for culture cost them a majority government last election. That was when Quebec voters saw through them and backed off in support and have stayed away from the CPC's ever since. This insight in Quebec happened after first being bamboozled by the Rovarian message machine that promised them recognition of "nation" and the feigning fixing of the non-existent "fiscal imbalance." This opportunistic political pandering for personal political power is at the epicentre of the cold cynical heart that is the essence of the soulless Harper Cons.
Now we have act two and another culture based political farce in Edmonton that goes to the core motivations of that cold anti-culture heart of the Harper Cons and puts in a pinch of pure petty politics for flavour. I talked about the Conservatives taking Edmonton for granted in an interview for CBC's The National just before the last election. To paraphrase I said in politics you can ignore two kinds of voters; those who will never vote for you and those who will always vote for you. Edmonton falls mostly in the latter group. Hence the Edmonton Folk Festival, the largest in Canada and recognized as one of the best of its kind in the world and around for 30 years gets no federal funding under a "Marquee Tourism Event????"
Square this circle when news reports of the stated "funding criteria" from an Industry Canada spokesman who said "MTEP (the Marquee Tourism Event Program) is designed to help existing tourism events that occur annually, are well established, have a tradition of programming and management excellence, and generate significant increases in their levels of tourism activity." The Edmonton Folk Festival somehow does not fit this description? It defines this description!
So guess what you don't have to be rational or fair or even equitable in how you select marquee events for funding. Favouritism, ideology and calculated political positioning in anticipation of a fall election seem to play a major part in how these funding decisions are being made. Here are some facts for you to chew on that supports these conclusions. Edmonton got $800,000, half for the Fringe, the first of its kind in Canada and running successfully since 1980 and half for the 3 year old Rexall Indy car race. Calgary, the Prime Minister's home town and "rich with Conservative Cabinet Ministers, got $2.2 million. Lets talk about a shot at redemption for a minute. Ottawa gets over $2million for three festivals and Vancouver a similar amount for two events.
Only $33.4 million has been distributed across Canada so far, and mostly at the last minute, and why not distribute all of it if it to be part of the economic stimulus funding in response to the recession. Quebec scored an amazing $13.1m of the total loot - so far! Steve, Steve , Steve! You already now you can't buy love in Quebec. And now you better understand you can't presume Edmonton and Alberta will give you unconditional love anymore either.
Another thing Steve, wasn't it that same kind of political pandering to Quebec that angered you as the slogan the "West Wants In" actually helped start the Reform Party in the first place? Where are you're political principles and what does all this tell us about your character, other than the pursuit of political power as the name of your game?
The final act is where flummox and unfairness turns into political farce. The farcical internal caucus consternation that led to the dumping of Diane Ablonczy from running this funding program was the early warning sign of what is pure political interference in the program. She was dumped because she put money into Toronto Gay Pride events and had the temerity to pose for a picture with some of "them." Now we have the hapless MP for Edmonton Centre, Laurie Hawn, is turning out to be the goat in the practical politics of this pathetic little panto. He is hopelessly trying to convince Edmontonians that there is no political interference in all of this.
He obviously had to speak out on this funding farce before he got the official talking points from the Prime Minister's Office. That is definitely a career limiting event in the top down command and control culture of the Harper Cons. Here is the gist of what Hawn has said so far.
There is no Edmonton versus Calgary issue here. Yeah Right! Explain why the Calgary Folk Festive get 30% more funding Heritage than Edmonton's when it is half the size? He flat out states "I've purposefully kept out of the process, so there would be no political interference." What the hell do you think your job is Mr.Hawn as a political representative of Edmonton in the federal government? Why are you at the "government's big kids Cabinet table" if not to represent Edmonton's interest in such matters?
How did the 3 year old Rexall Indy get the nod over the Folk Festival? I hear Hawn had a significant hand in that political decision. Oh yes, the Indy race, has budget management problems and is only THREE years old BUT it is in your constituency. Of yes, the Folk Festival is also in the Edmonton Strathcona constituency. That is the political home of Linda Duncan, that NDP blight on the Harper Con field of broken dreams. She alone frustrated the presumption of totally Conservative control and domination of Alberta. And besides Linda's riding is also home of the Fringe, who got some funding. She should be happy enough to keep quiet about any implication of political machinations that did or didn't go on in final funding decisions. Yeah, right again!
The coup d'grace of Hawn's political pugnaciousness is when he tries to characterize this ineptness or indifference as a way to ensure "no political interference" in the funding process to make sure this program did not become another Adscam. He just had to draw out that old Harper shibboleth and continue to mislead Albertans and Canada about the Adscam facts. After months of public inquiry and investigation Mr. Justice Gomrey found no evidence of any political interference by any politician at any level in the all of the Adscam frauds. Those frauds happened but were perpetrated by bureaucrats, party officials and private sector businessmen. No politicians were harmed or were harming the interests of Canada or their constituency in Adscam so quit misrepresenting the facts for partisan political purposes Mr Hawn.
There is a fundamental lack of fairness in all of this and it simply does not pass the political sniff test. Edmonton is being sent a political message by the Harper Cons. We are being put in our place for frustrating the natural order of things because some voters in Edmonton thwarted Harper's pursuit or personal and absolute political power, a total sweep of Alberta.
Harper's political brain trust presumes the Edmonton folkies won't vote for him anyway and, after this he has ensured that result. Those who other Edmontonians who are equivocating about him, his governing performance and suitability for holding the highest office in the land are being sold in no uncertain terms that they had better hop off that fence right now. The message is clear. If Harper wins the next election Edmonton would be well advised to step in line with him, we have just had a small taste of what could happen.
Harper is a bully and we have just seen another example of it. So much for democracy and freedom if Edmonton complies and conforms to support that kind of "leadership" next election.
Some context on the first act. The Harper Cons contempt for culture cost them a majority government last election. That was when Quebec voters saw through them and backed off in support and have stayed away from the CPC's ever since. This insight in Quebec happened after first being bamboozled by the Rovarian message machine that promised them recognition of "nation" and the feigning fixing of the non-existent "fiscal imbalance." This opportunistic political pandering for personal political power is at the epicentre of the cold cynical heart that is the essence of the soulless Harper Cons.
Now we have act two and another culture based political farce in Edmonton that goes to the core motivations of that cold anti-culture heart of the Harper Cons and puts in a pinch of pure petty politics for flavour. I talked about the Conservatives taking Edmonton for granted in an interview for CBC's The National just before the last election. To paraphrase I said in politics you can ignore two kinds of voters; those who will never vote for you and those who will always vote for you. Edmonton falls mostly in the latter group. Hence the Edmonton Folk Festival, the largest in Canada and recognized as one of the best of its kind in the world and around for 30 years gets no federal funding under a "Marquee Tourism Event????"
Square this circle when news reports of the stated "funding criteria" from an Industry Canada spokesman who said "MTEP (the Marquee Tourism Event Program) is designed to help existing tourism events that occur annually, are well established, have a tradition of programming and management excellence, and generate significant increases in their levels of tourism activity." The Edmonton Folk Festival somehow does not fit this description? It defines this description!
So guess what you don't have to be rational or fair or even equitable in how you select marquee events for funding. Favouritism, ideology and calculated political positioning in anticipation of a fall election seem to play a major part in how these funding decisions are being made. Here are some facts for you to chew on that supports these conclusions. Edmonton got $800,000, half for the Fringe, the first of its kind in Canada and running successfully since 1980 and half for the 3 year old Rexall Indy car race. Calgary, the Prime Minister's home town and "rich with Conservative Cabinet Ministers, got $2.2 million. Lets talk about a shot at redemption for a minute. Ottawa gets over $2million for three festivals and Vancouver a similar amount for two events.
Only $33.4 million has been distributed across Canada so far, and mostly at the last minute, and why not distribute all of it if it to be part of the economic stimulus funding in response to the recession. Quebec scored an amazing $13.1m of the total loot - so far! Steve, Steve , Steve! You already now you can't buy love in Quebec. And now you better understand you can't presume Edmonton and Alberta will give you unconditional love anymore either.
Another thing Steve, wasn't it that same kind of political pandering to Quebec that angered you as the slogan the "West Wants In" actually helped start the Reform Party in the first place? Where are you're political principles and what does all this tell us about your character, other than the pursuit of political power as the name of your game?
The final act is where flummox and unfairness turns into political farce. The farcical internal caucus consternation that led to the dumping of Diane Ablonczy from running this funding program was the early warning sign of what is pure political interference in the program. She was dumped because she put money into Toronto Gay Pride events and had the temerity to pose for a picture with some of "them." Now we have the hapless MP for Edmonton Centre, Laurie Hawn, is turning out to be the goat in the practical politics of this pathetic little panto. He is hopelessly trying to convince Edmontonians that there is no political interference in all of this.
He obviously had to speak out on this funding farce before he got the official talking points from the Prime Minister's Office. That is definitely a career limiting event in the top down command and control culture of the Harper Cons. Here is the gist of what Hawn has said so far.
There is no Edmonton versus Calgary issue here. Yeah Right! Explain why the Calgary Folk Festive get 30% more funding Heritage than Edmonton's when it is half the size? He flat out states "I've purposefully kept out of the process, so there would be no political interference." What the hell do you think your job is Mr.Hawn as a political representative of Edmonton in the federal government? Why are you at the "government's big kids Cabinet table" if not to represent Edmonton's interest in such matters?
How did the 3 year old Rexall Indy get the nod over the Folk Festival? I hear Hawn had a significant hand in that political decision. Oh yes, the Indy race, has budget management problems and is only THREE years old BUT it is in your constituency. Of yes, the Folk Festival is also in the Edmonton Strathcona constituency. That is the political home of Linda Duncan, that NDP blight on the Harper Con field of broken dreams. She alone frustrated the presumption of totally Conservative control and domination of Alberta. And besides Linda's riding is also home of the Fringe, who got some funding. She should be happy enough to keep quiet about any implication of political machinations that did or didn't go on in final funding decisions. Yeah, right again!
The coup d'grace of Hawn's political pugnaciousness is when he tries to characterize this ineptness or indifference as a way to ensure "no political interference" in the funding process to make sure this program did not become another Adscam. He just had to draw out that old Harper shibboleth and continue to mislead Albertans and Canada about the Adscam facts. After months of public inquiry and investigation Mr. Justice Gomrey found no evidence of any political interference by any politician at any level in the all of the Adscam frauds. Those frauds happened but were perpetrated by bureaucrats, party officials and private sector businessmen. No politicians were harmed or were harming the interests of Canada or their constituency in Adscam so quit misrepresenting the facts for partisan political purposes Mr Hawn.
There is a fundamental lack of fairness in all of this and it simply does not pass the political sniff test. Edmonton is being sent a political message by the Harper Cons. We are being put in our place for frustrating the natural order of things because some voters in Edmonton thwarted Harper's pursuit or personal and absolute political power, a total sweep of Alberta.
Harper's political brain trust presumes the Edmonton folkies won't vote for him anyway and, after this he has ensured that result. Those who other Edmontonians who are equivocating about him, his governing performance and suitability for holding the highest office in the land are being sold in no uncertain terms that they had better hop off that fence right now. The message is clear. If Harper wins the next election Edmonton would be well advised to step in line with him, we have just had a small taste of what could happen.
Harper is a bully and we have just seen another example of it. So much for democracy and freedom if Edmonton complies and conforms to support that kind of "leadership" next election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)