I have been asked/invited to "join" the group of bloggers on Renewingtheonepartystate. I am intrigued but have to say I have trouble associating with anonymous bloggers...especially those who have not had much to say recently of any significance . The RTOPS folks have apparently been keen to get back to relevance, as opposed to the current predominant site culture of shallow shots sans substance. Too much of what I have recently read on RTOPS is merely reproducing traditional newspaper stories text with an intro quip at best. What is this lack of content and context, not to mention absence of commentary all about? Laziness? Maybe! Trite and superficial - much too often.
I am not really interested in the actual renewal of the ONE party state. I am keen on relevant, inclusive, diverse, curious, welcoming and engaging authentic political parties - regardless of political ideology. I see most parties today being run by backroom bullies, bullshit artists or wannabe backslappers. The overarching common characteristic of such people is institutional anonymity. They get others to do the overt dirty work while they engineer the action behind the scenes in Oz-like "cover."
That said the more communication and open discourse of informed and engaged opinion that is accessible by real citizens who are keen on contributing significantly to the comon good...I am in. I believe political parties need reforming as much as the old Soviet Bloc did. Walls have to be torn down. They can't continue the way they are and they have to find the means to become relevant and meaningful again. The internet is so citizen accommodating and so capable of serving this purpose. But blogger anonymity suggest they live in fear. Pity them or discount them or join them...that is my question.
RTOPS is has potential to help political parties become people-centred political places again. I just don't understand the need for pseudonyms or the bloggers need to be behind their masks. Blogger bravado that is nothing more than de facto timidity is just a "poulet feces" way to "make a point."'
So - gentle readers, check out RTOPS site. Let me know what you think of this idea. Ought I accept or reject the invite... unconditionally, or conditionally? Is it reasonable to ask the contributors to be obvious and overt about who they are as much as they are obvious and overt about their opinions?
I see a real opportunity here but is it better seen as a "Groucho Marx" opportunity where I ought to decline any "club" that would have me as a member? Let me know your thoughts.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Good for Garry Rohr...and Who is He?
Finally the social extremists like Garry Rohr, are "coming out" and overtly engaging in the political process to influence the PC leadership campaign outcome - and Ted Morton is their man. My sentiments are summed up by Adlai Stevenson (I think) who said, "I disagree with everything you are saying but will defended with my life your right to say it." Just Google Garry Rohr to get a sense of who he is and how he operates. In the Richard Nixon style of "I am not a crook" Rohr is quoted as saying, "We've been painted in the media as extremists, but we're really not that extreme." "...not that extreme...." Boy is that comforting!
These are the folks that made Stephen Harper "scary" in 2004 and my guess (hope of hopes) is they do the same for Ted Morton. Drs. Morton and Oberg are on the same page here. Morton is reported as being committed as Premier to reintroduce his anti-gay legislation to discriminate and deny certain people the fairness and the freedom to marry. Even Victor Doerksen isn't going there and notes it is a federal issue according to the same Edmonton Journal report.
The tactics are the same old "set up" survey questionnaire of the "gotcha" playbook of political tricks. These groups used them in the last two provincial elections. I wonder which of his profusion of advocacy fronts and factions he will use this time. Will it be the Canada Family Action Coalition, or his Family Life Coalition, or Families for Day (yes that's Stockwell Day we're talking about here). These are just a few of his political action "vehicles."
These organizations are large groups of people, not like the phoney grassroots cabal that took on Deb Gray a few years back. They proved to be loud and media savvy but in the end, they had a membership about as big as a half empty phone booth. Rohr has a huge membership base and claims an e-mail list of 50,000 names. That is more than enough to make a difference in the PC leadership. In fact it could determine the end result if everyone else sits on the cynical sidelines.
I have posted before on Dr. Morton (August 22, 27) and Victor Doerksen (Aug 16) if you want more context on them and their issues. For serious citizens participation in this PC leadership is not an option.
The world is run by those who show up and Garry Rohr and his people are determined to show up. Good on them. That is what democracy is all about. What about the rest of us? Will we show up or simply sit back and settle for an outcome determined by others?
These are the folks that made Stephen Harper "scary" in 2004 and my guess (hope of hopes) is they do the same for Ted Morton. Drs. Morton and Oberg are on the same page here. Morton is reported as being committed as Premier to reintroduce his anti-gay legislation to discriminate and deny certain people the fairness and the freedom to marry. Even Victor Doerksen isn't going there and notes it is a federal issue according to the same Edmonton Journal report.
The tactics are the same old "set up" survey questionnaire of the "gotcha" playbook of political tricks. These groups used them in the last two provincial elections. I wonder which of his profusion of advocacy fronts and factions he will use this time. Will it be the Canada Family Action Coalition, or his Family Life Coalition, or Families for Day (yes that's Stockwell Day we're talking about here). These are just a few of his political action "vehicles."
These organizations are large groups of people, not like the phoney grassroots cabal that took on Deb Gray a few years back. They proved to be loud and media savvy but in the end, they had a membership about as big as a half empty phone booth. Rohr has a huge membership base and claims an e-mail list of 50,000 names. That is more than enough to make a difference in the PC leadership. In fact it could determine the end result if everyone else sits on the cynical sidelines.
I have posted before on Dr. Morton (August 22, 27) and Victor Doerksen (Aug 16) if you want more context on them and their issues. For serious citizens participation in this PC leadership is not an option.
The world is run by those who show up and Garry Rohr and his people are determined to show up. Good on them. That is what democracy is all about. What about the rest of us? Will we show up or simply sit back and settle for an outcome determined by others?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Which Way Are We Going?
The plot thickens on the "issues" between myself, the Hancock guy, and William McBeath, the Morton guy, and the speculation about if Albertans will go progressive or conservative in their choice of the new PC leader and "pro tem" Premier.
Duncan Wojtaszek posts an analysis of sweet reason and gives us great insight on this question. His answer? It is Yes...it could go either way. And he gives a good myth-busting review of history, events and possible trends to show how it could go either way this time.
He invites us to think larger and deeper than the sound bite candidates would wish for us. I think every PC member should read this posting. Take your time. It demands reflection. It is also a wake up call to the the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.
In November will we pick a new direction and definition of Alberta? Or will we look for a renewed Lougheed, or a Klein Clone, or a Paul Martin facsimile or a reconditioned Aberhart? If that is all we do I fear we forfeit the future of the province. The new "leader" may well, blow the next election and turn into a Harry Strom and destroy the entire Party as well.
The bottom line...be careful who you elect. Not just now but always.
Thx Duncan.
Duncan Wojtaszek posts an analysis of sweet reason and gives us great insight on this question. His answer? It is Yes...it could go either way. And he gives a good myth-busting review of history, events and possible trends to show how it could go either way this time.
He invites us to think larger and deeper than the sound bite candidates would wish for us. I think every PC member should read this posting. Take your time. It demands reflection. It is also a wake up call to the the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.
In November will we pick a new direction and definition of Alberta? Or will we look for a renewed Lougheed, or a Klein Clone, or a Paul Martin facsimile or a reconditioned Aberhart? If that is all we do I fear we forfeit the future of the province. The new "leader" may well, blow the next election and turn into a Harry Strom and destroy the entire Party as well.
The bottom line...be careful who you elect. Not just now but always.
Thx Duncan.
A Swift Kick in the "Rebut" From McBeath
Fellow Blogger Will McBeath’s (Noise From the Right) recent posting gives me a swift kick in the “Rebut.” Is Alberta more Progressive or Conservative and where are we going anyway? His answer: Alberta is on its way to a Conservative Heaven. I presume with a hand basket that is chock full of Alberta-only money.
He gives us real numbers on real election results to prove his thesis. He admits to some issues with his earlier numbers explaining them to be “hyperbole to illustrate my point.” Ah yes lies, damn lies and statistics.
I applaud Will’s analysis and accept its accuracy on faith because I trust him. I don’t need to double check the data. Because, frankly, the data is mere fact! In politics, facts, while interesting are almost entirely irrelevant. In politics it is more about how you frame the issues and how you activate value drivers about what people believe to be important. That makes the difference in how a citizen decides who to trust with his or her vote.
Election results taken out of context are essentially meaningless stats. The rational positivists really believe tomorrow will reflect yesterday and the world is static and people are predictable. Any student of human nature knows just how wrong that is.
So I don’t argue with Will’s data on past election results. I say so what! Does it matter? What difference do the past stats make in today’s reality? Trends are not destiny. I do know that campaigns matter and they do make a difference. For example in 2004 the Liberals convinced the voting public that Harper was “scary” based on comments coming from his ultra-conservative far-right religious supporters. Harper lost. Value drivers, not data made the difference. In the 2006 election Harper engineered a no-confidence vote and convinced those people who made him “scary” to keep quiet during the campaign. They did. This campaign had Gomery in full bloom and the RCMP publicly announcing investigations on an alleged leak about something called Income Trusts. The values drives kick in and the new “non-scary” Harper gets to be PM.
The moral of the story? Campaigns matter. Just ask Harper. Context is king. Kings are made by context. Counting old ballots is not context is just a bunch of old data. Nice work “Noise” in collecting the data - but in reality, it signifies nothing.
He gives us real numbers on real election results to prove his thesis. He admits to some issues with his earlier numbers explaining them to be “hyperbole to illustrate my point.” Ah yes lies, damn lies and statistics.
I applaud Will’s analysis and accept its accuracy on faith because I trust him. I don’t need to double check the data. Because, frankly, the data is mere fact! In politics, facts, while interesting are almost entirely irrelevant. In politics it is more about how you frame the issues and how you activate value drivers about what people believe to be important. That makes the difference in how a citizen decides who to trust with his or her vote.
Election results taken out of context are essentially meaningless stats. The rational positivists really believe tomorrow will reflect yesterday and the world is static and people are predictable. Any student of human nature knows just how wrong that is.
So I don’t argue with Will’s data on past election results. I say so what! Does it matter? What difference do the past stats make in today’s reality? Trends are not destiny. I do know that campaigns matter and they do make a difference. For example in 2004 the Liberals convinced the voting public that Harper was “scary” based on comments coming from his ultra-conservative far-right religious supporters. Harper lost. Value drivers, not data made the difference. In the 2006 election Harper engineered a no-confidence vote and convinced those people who made him “scary” to keep quiet during the campaign. They did. This campaign had Gomery in full bloom and the RCMP publicly announcing investigations on an alleged leak about something called Income Trusts. The values drives kick in and the new “non-scary” Harper gets to be PM.
The moral of the story? Campaigns matter. Just ask Harper. Context is king. Kings are made by context. Counting old ballots is not context is just a bunch of old data. Nice work “Noise” in collecting the data - but in reality, it signifies nothing.
Do as I Say, "Stay in School" - Ralph Klein
The symposium on high school completion “Your Future Starts Here” is a wrap. Some 600 delegates came, some to "admire the problem" and some offered practical ideas on how to solve it. They also got to hear Ralph Klein outline why he used to be a bad role model for the staying in school message. From high school drop out to Premier is not the usual path and not a stress-free outcome in his experience in “the school of hard knocks.”
From a Learning Commission policy target of 90% completion and a track record of only 77% means something is amiss and has to be done. Suggestions ranged from adding more guidance counsellors, improved literacy programs and more librarians in schools. The feds have just announced a $13B surplus and that they are backing out of supporting fed-prov literacy programs. Many other social support programs are being cut by the Harper government as well. So it falls on Alberta to step up - and why not. Education is provincial jurisdiction after all. Check the PC Leadership Candidates websites and see what they say about this issue.
Do you think public education is important? Take some time and let the province know what you think are of our public education system. There is an on-line survey sponsored by Public Interest Alberta at http://www.schoolsurvey.ca/. I took it and think that is a great place to start to get the provincial ball rolling.
From a Learning Commission policy target of 90% completion and a track record of only 77% means something is amiss and has to be done. Suggestions ranged from adding more guidance counsellors, improved literacy programs and more librarians in schools. The feds have just announced a $13B surplus and that they are backing out of supporting fed-prov literacy programs. Many other social support programs are being cut by the Harper government as well. So it falls on Alberta to step up - and why not. Education is provincial jurisdiction after all. Check the PC Leadership Candidates websites and see what they say about this issue.
Do you think public education is important? Take some time and let the province know what you think are of our public education system. There is an on-line survey sponsored by Public Interest Alberta at http://www.schoolsurvey.ca/. I took it and think that is a great place to start to get the provincial ball rolling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)