What is Next for Bill 44 Provision in Alberta Human Rights Act?
The frequency and volume of political commentary about passing The Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA) that adopted the Bill 44 opting out provisions will diminish over the next few months. It is summer after all. The reality of the consequences of this ill-advised and ill-conceived law will come once the Act is proclaimed and becomes the actual law of the land.
There are some unrest and rumblings within the Progressive Conservative Party rank and file against Bill 44 provisions in the AHRA. I also hear some in the PC Party are trying to stifle and suppress any continuing talk about Bill 44, presuming it will be forgotten over time. I don't think that will be the case given the anger I have seen expressed over this bad politics and poor governance decision. That approached worked in a pre-Internet world but it will not work now.
There are a few moves afoot within some PC Party constituencies to submit a resolution for repeal of the opting out provisions for debate the AGM in November 2009. I am all for that and hope it happens but there are many hurdles to jump to make that a reality. Here is a sense of what it would take and what it would mean for the PC Party to debate the repeal of the opting out provisions of the AHRA at the next AGM.
The PC Party is not the PC Government.
First, if must be clearly understood that whatever the PC Party decides is not binding on the Stelmach government. The PC Party is just another political special interest group. It is not the government. I served on the PC Party Policy Committee for years but over a decade ago. I had a constant fight with the Reform/Alliance wing members who did not grasp the difference between the government and the policy proposals of the political party that supported it. Grassroots run deep with old-time Reformers.
Sometimes process is everything so here is how it works, as I understand it. I checked the process and it is essentially the same as in my day in dealing with Party Resolutions at AGMs. Here is a link to the PC Party website for the actual constituency resolution process, if you are interested.
The PC Party debates Resolutions at every AGM from submissions made by individual constituency organizations. Each constituency can submit two resolutions. The first one (the "A" Resolution) will always be debated. While the second one (the "B" Resolution) may not be debated because of time constraints. If there are duplicates of resolutions they are combined and only one is debated. Some resolutions are declined because the don't deal with provincial jurisdiction or they are too vague or too local in nature.
A group of Regional Directors and constituency level VPs of Policy, all as party volunteers, will do the vetting of the resolutions received. The A and B Resolutions are dealt with first come first served and up to 6 minutes of debate is provided for each one. Then any party member in the room can vote on the Resolution on a show of hands. Open transparent and fair to my mind.
Those Resolutions that get support from the membership are submitted to the government as information and advice. The government caucus then considers them and responds to the Party on each one, in writing. The government's responses range from agreement to disagreement and everything in between and often includes a reporting on the status and progress on resolutions and related issues.
Will the PC AGM Debate a Repeal Resolution?
So what will it take to get the AHRA provisions of Bill 44 to be debated as a Resolution at the November PC Party AGM? The first step is for a local party constituency organization to draft an appropriate proposed resolution and then decide as a local Board to submit it to the AGM.
That first step has already been done by the Edmonton Whitemud PC Constituency but there is a wrinkle. My information is the Bill 44 Repeal Resolution from Whitemud was a tie vote for second place - a "B" Resolution. The constituency apparently has decided to submit three resolutions rather than break the tie for the B resolution. It is an interesting development because the Repeal Resolution it will at best be a "B" Resolution and it risks not being debated due to time constraints. That has never happened in my experience in dealing with Party Resolutions, but it is a possibility, and in politics if it is possible anything can happen so nothing should surprise us.
Here are some interesting "What Ifs." What if in the initial Party vetting process they cull one of the two Whitemud B resolutions because only two Resolutions are allowed. Would the Bill 44 resolution be the one culled? The resolution vetting process could more likely send the two B resolutions back to Whitemud and require them to break the tie and will that happen or will they settle on only submitting an "A" Resolution?
If at the party organizational level, they decided to cull the only Repeal Resolution on such a technicality, I expect progressives in the PC Party would either revolt against the Party Executive or just leave the party. My money is on the Party going back to the Whitemud constituency and making them break the tie vote. So much uncertainty still prevails.
This could be avoided if another PC Constituency organization were to submit an "A" Resolution to recommend repeal of the AHRA opting out provisions. To date that has not happened but it might. I think it should happen for the sake of the PC Party itself but there appears to be some of nervous nellies who help run the party. They clearly want this to go away so all this Bill 44 controversy would just disappear somehow.
Some Serious Political Implications Around a Repeal Resolution
Here are some of the political implications for the PC Party, the PC government and progressive Albertans emerging from these various scenarios. If there is a Resolution for the Repeal of the AHRA opting out provisions debated at the AGM, and it passes, the Stelmach government can reconsider its policy and move to repeal the provisions. It can also say no, that is a done deal and they can refuse to reconsider. That is their option as our government but there will be repercussions in the PC Party and the PC government either way.
If such a Resolution is defeated by the PC Party membership then there will be soul searching in the progressive membership ranks of the PC Party considering if this party is still viable as their political "home." Who knows if or when that will happen. The party progressives I have talked to about Bill 44 know there is no other political party for them to go where they feel comfortable and believe they could be effective. The question then is will they join the other 60% of disengaged Albertans or pursue something different to express their political philosophy and aspirations for Alberta? Will the "Alberta Citizen Cynicism" party gets thousands more non-voters?
There are Implication for Progressives.
There is another more subtle but even more significant potential implication coming out of how the PC Party handles a Resolution to repeal AHRA opting out provisions. If they never received such a resolution from a constituency then local constituency ennui or angst against "rocking the boat" gets the Party off the hook. But that does not resolve the larger political issue, namely the anger amongst all the progressive Albertans who are still angry over the unnecessary Bill 44 optioning out provisions in the AHRA.
If no PC constituency organization has the courage and conviction to submit a repeal resolution for debate at the AGM I expect most progressive PC members will drift away from the party and be missing in action in the next election. The non-partisan Alberta progressives will decide to actively campaign against the PC Party in preparation for the next election. We are seeing the tip of that iceberg as evidenced in the wave of social media and traditional media commentary on the appropriateness of some recent personal comments made in public by Iris Evans and Doug Elniski. The PC Party and the PC government can expect more of this kind of scrutiny and aggressive response from now on - regardless of any AGM debate or its outcome.
If the Party receives a submission but tries to subvert the AGM debate of a repeal resolution I will expect to see progressive party members getting more vocal and deciding in droves to be no shows at the November AGM meeting. I can't see that subversion happening but it is politics and anything can happen. If it did happen I would be more disappointed than surprised. The likely unintended consequences are that the majority of PC party members who will "show up" at the AGM (and who will likely be encouraged to show up) will be those social conservatives on the far right of the party who tend to support Ted Morton.
There are Potential Implications for the Stelmach Leadership too.
Under those circumstances, a really significant political turn of events from the Bill 44 fiasco, that could happen at this November AGM. That is a potential threat to Premier Stelmach's continuing leadership of the PC Party. The PC Party Constitution requires that the Leader to face a confidence vote at the first AGM following an election - win or lose. That is how the Party sent a message to Ralph Klein that it was time for him to go a few years back. Ralph lingered as Leader, but the Party told him, in a vote of no uncertain terms, that he was past his best before date. He was gone!
PC Party Leader Ed Stelmach has to face a similar leadership confidence vote of party members at the November AGM.
What if the party "faithful" who show up at the AGM are predominantly social conservatives because they are emboldened by Bill 44? What if the the progressives stay home because the are discouraged by Bill 44? Could this be the "perfect storm" for the far right to give Premier Stelmach a low vote of support? What level of low support would seriously undermine his continuing leadership? What if his support is low enough, like Klein's 55% support? Will he have a backbench revolt of social conservatives that demand another leadership race? Will we be into a PC leadership contest for a new Alberta Premier sooner than we thought or even wished for? What will such uncertainty do to the Alberta economy and any recovery from the recession?
This is what can happen when internal partisan political expediency is preferred over good governance - like in the case of the Bill 44 fiasco. Bill 44 issues will be quiet over the summer but they will be front and centre again in the fall. Stay tuned. It promises to be interesting, unnerving, disappointing and even devastating, depending on your perspective.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
It's Time for Rethinking and Reforming How Albertans Govern Themselves
I just read an interesting blog post by Sue Huff. She is a School Trustee with the Edmonton Public School Board and, obviously, a Blogger. She has just posted a thoughtful and practical piece on the controversy surrounding the recent comments by Minster Evans and MLA Doug Elniski. I really like her comments - because she agrees with my own views.
She ponders in her post about the impact these politicians who were "speaking their minds" will have on political discourse in our democracy. Will party discipline trump free speech? Will focus group tested safe messaging replace personal opinions of politicians? Will our governing class become incurious about new ideas? Will politicinas get spooked and become insecure in their values and beliefs? Will they respond by retreating to a political foetal position in the face of the realities of new media?
Sue Huff exemplifies the kind of leadership and trusteeship I was calling for in my paper presented to about 250 Alberta school trustees at the recent Alberta School Boards Association Summer General Meeting. In the paper entitled "A Contented Oyster Never Made a Pearl" I called up school School Trustees to take a leadership role in rethinking and reforming how we govern ourselves. She gets it and her recent blog post is all the proof you need to support that conclusion.
I think we need a more mature governance model in the face of Alberta's declining democracy. Sue makes a reinforcing point when she speaks about "The voting process in Alberta seems shallow to me; people vote for whoever showed up at their door, the party their family has always voted for, based on a 1/4 page flyer or the recommendation of a friend who is deemed 'up' on politics." We elect our governors. If we do a bad job in choosing who we grant our consent to govern us to, who is really to blame?
Citizens of Alberta have to re-imagine their place and what is accepted practice for politicans in our representative democracy. I applaud the kind of "unguarded" personal thoughts we have recently seen from two Alberta politcians. They have created forums for a broader and deeper discussion about Alberta society. For me it's all about free speech. I say use it wisely or lose it to mediocrity or mendacity!
She ponders in her post about the impact these politicians who were "speaking their minds" will have on political discourse in our democracy. Will party discipline trump free speech? Will focus group tested safe messaging replace personal opinions of politicians? Will our governing class become incurious about new ideas? Will politicinas get spooked and become insecure in their values and beliefs? Will they respond by retreating to a political foetal position in the face of the realities of new media?
Sue Huff exemplifies the kind of leadership and trusteeship I was calling for in my paper presented to about 250 Alberta school trustees at the recent Alberta School Boards Association Summer General Meeting. In the paper entitled "A Contented Oyster Never Made a Pearl" I called up school School Trustees to take a leadership role in rethinking and reforming how we govern ourselves. She gets it and her recent blog post is all the proof you need to support that conclusion.
I think we need a more mature governance model in the face of Alberta's declining democracy. Sue makes a reinforcing point when she speaks about "The voting process in Alberta seems shallow to me; people vote for whoever showed up at their door, the party their family has always voted for, based on a 1/4 page flyer or the recommendation of a friend who is deemed 'up' on politics." We elect our governors. If we do a bad job in choosing who we grant our consent to govern us to, who is really to blame?
Citizens of Alberta have to re-imagine their place and what is accepted practice for politicans in our representative democracy. I applaud the kind of "unguarded" personal thoughts we have recently seen from two Alberta politcians. They have created forums for a broader and deeper discussion about Alberta society. For me it's all about free speech. I say use it wisely or lose it to mediocrity or mendacity!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Iris Evans Personal Comments Sparks a Public Debate About the Complexities of Raising Children - I Say Good For Her!
I have followed the debate sparked by the recent remarks of Iris Evans, Alberta’s Finance Minister about her view that the “proper” way to raise children is for one parent to stay at home. I am so pleased that the debate has been brought to the fore. It is a very important issue that deals with the responsibility we owe to children as parents, individuals, community and as government.
My bottom line politically is to value the fact that Iris Evan spoke her mind, clearly and with personal conviction. There is no other current Alberta politician who has done more for the plight of women and children, especially those at risk, than Iris Evans. She championed the project to raise awareness and work on prevention and treatment from domestic violence and bullying. She did this without the usual partisan political posturing. She focused on the issues and gathered the best people together to deal with the concerns – including men as victims of violence. I know because, full disclosure, I lead that portion of the project.
This issue of parenting and caring concerns are far from resolved and are at the basis for many conflicting personal values and societal duties. The trade offs of our various duties to children and to families and the conflicting needs of both parents to work t adequately provide for those children.
I don’t know the current numbers but there has been a significant increase in female participation in the workforce since the 50’s. The net result I recall in the decade 1979-1989 was a dramatic increase in females working outside the home but the net increase in household prosperity of those families merely increased 1% in that decade. Women’s workplace participation may have been personally and professionally satisfying but it did not do much to enhance the economic well being of the family. The increased taxes, inflation, cost of borrowing and other cost like childcare and transportation seems to have eaten up all the “additional” income.
I am not picking sides in the debate mostly because it is very personal and it is up to everyone have to make their own decisions about what is proper and practical. We all have a stake in this question of the care and nurturing, teaching and training of the children in our society too.
Is the Iris Evans approach the right one? I don’t think anyone would disagree – in a perfect world. However the word today is far from perfect. I am not wishing for the halcyon days of my youth when my stay at home mom and I could be supported comfortably on the wages of my Journeyman Electrician father – who almost always had a job in town and was home from work almost every night with the family.
I spent a couple of hours with Wallis Kendall from iHuman on Saturday on the Gun Sculpture Project we are working on together. He is the most engaged front line street level worker with the most dangerous and disadvantaged kids in our society. In discussion about Iris’ comments Wallis said, I work with lots of stay-at-home moms. The parent group he talked about is teenagers with children who were single parents, addicted but working on getting clean. They are uneducated, in poverty and mostly unemployable, especially in this recession because the jobs they are capable of doing simply disappear. But they are "stay at home" moms but hardly the optimal way to raise a family.
Wallis tells me they get their rent paid and they used to have to live on $600 per month to feed, cloth, diaper and deal with all transportation and other the care needs of themselves and their child, and find the hope and support to get past their addictions. Wallis tells me formula and diapers take up $230.00 a month. The Alberta support rates have being going down. Wallis told me now a mom in this situation with responsibility to provide care for two infants and herself now only receives $471 per month.
I tried to confirm these numbers online but without success so I rely on Wallis's knowledge of the supports situation. A proper way to raise a child may be for one parent to stay at home but that implies a whole bunch of other context and available family and community resources to make that a positive situation. The cost of living and the purchasing power of wages are way out of whack for the average family for this to be practical today.
Not only that we are squandering and becoming derelict in our duty to the next generation I the present way we deal with vulnerable and at risk kids, we are also chewing up the environment we will leave in the name of a false sense of short term progress and prosperity. We are also giving away our resource rents in a ridiculously low royalty rate and energy industry subsidies that perpetuate past sins that fragment the forest, destroy habitat, misuse water, spew unconscionable amounts of GHG into the atmosphere and fails to reclaim and restore old well sites, roadways and seismic lines. The lack of concern for inter generational equity in our current energy and economic policy is horrendous.
The energy sector is not the only problem. We all are in how we sprawl our cities, build our buildings and mindlessly use energy and pamper ourselves in our methods and modes of transportation. I think I have illustrated already the insufficient concern we show as a society for the weakest, most vulnerable and least capable in our society. We blame the government as if we are somehow not responsible for the consequences of how we voted or if we did not vote.
All these things tie together and inter-relate. One thing for sure, on a dais giving a speech at the Empire Club in Toronto, one Alberta Minister let her personal views and values about how to properly raise a family show clearly and concisely. Agree or disagree with her as you will but at least we have a politician expressing a personal opinion about a serious social public policy matter in a way that gets people thinking and talking. That does not happen enough in mature and pathetically passive democracies like Alberta.
Criticize her position if you choose. But at least for a few moments, seriously consider the concern, the context and the consequences of her comments. Then come to your own considered opinion based on your values and capabilities to do the right thing for your children, your family and yes – your community too. When it comes to raising kids “properly” it takes at least a viable village and a viable family with capable parents. We are all in this together; alone!
My bottom line politically is to value the fact that Iris Evan spoke her mind, clearly and with personal conviction. There is no other current Alberta politician who has done more for the plight of women and children, especially those at risk, than Iris Evans. She championed the project to raise awareness and work on prevention and treatment from domestic violence and bullying. She did this without the usual partisan political posturing. She focused on the issues and gathered the best people together to deal with the concerns – including men as victims of violence. I know because, full disclosure, I lead that portion of the project.
This issue of parenting and caring concerns are far from resolved and are at the basis for many conflicting personal values and societal duties. The trade offs of our various duties to children and to families and the conflicting needs of both parents to work t adequately provide for those children.
I don’t know the current numbers but there has been a significant increase in female participation in the workforce since the 50’s. The net result I recall in the decade 1979-1989 was a dramatic increase in females working outside the home but the net increase in household prosperity of those families merely increased 1% in that decade. Women’s workplace participation may have been personally and professionally satisfying but it did not do much to enhance the economic well being of the family. The increased taxes, inflation, cost of borrowing and other cost like childcare and transportation seems to have eaten up all the “additional” income.
I am not picking sides in the debate mostly because it is very personal and it is up to everyone have to make their own decisions about what is proper and practical. We all have a stake in this question of the care and nurturing, teaching and training of the children in our society too.
Is the Iris Evans approach the right one? I don’t think anyone would disagree – in a perfect world. However the word today is far from perfect. I am not wishing for the halcyon days of my youth when my stay at home mom and I could be supported comfortably on the wages of my Journeyman Electrician father – who almost always had a job in town and was home from work almost every night with the family.
I spent a couple of hours with Wallis Kendall from iHuman on Saturday on the Gun Sculpture Project we are working on together. He is the most engaged front line street level worker with the most dangerous and disadvantaged kids in our society. In discussion about Iris’ comments Wallis said, I work with lots of stay-at-home moms. The parent group he talked about is teenagers with children who were single parents, addicted but working on getting clean. They are uneducated, in poverty and mostly unemployable, especially in this recession because the jobs they are capable of doing simply disappear. But they are "stay at home" moms but hardly the optimal way to raise a family.
Wallis tells me they get their rent paid and they used to have to live on $600 per month to feed, cloth, diaper and deal with all transportation and other the care needs of themselves and their child, and find the hope and support to get past their addictions. Wallis tells me formula and diapers take up $230.00 a month. The Alberta support rates have being going down. Wallis told me now a mom in this situation with responsibility to provide care for two infants and herself now only receives $471 per month.
I tried to confirm these numbers online but without success so I rely on Wallis's knowledge of the supports situation. A proper way to raise a child may be for one parent to stay at home but that implies a whole bunch of other context and available family and community resources to make that a positive situation. The cost of living and the purchasing power of wages are way out of whack for the average family for this to be practical today.
Not only that we are squandering and becoming derelict in our duty to the next generation I the present way we deal with vulnerable and at risk kids, we are also chewing up the environment we will leave in the name of a false sense of short term progress and prosperity. We are also giving away our resource rents in a ridiculously low royalty rate and energy industry subsidies that perpetuate past sins that fragment the forest, destroy habitat, misuse water, spew unconscionable amounts of GHG into the atmosphere and fails to reclaim and restore old well sites, roadways and seismic lines. The lack of concern for inter generational equity in our current energy and economic policy is horrendous.
The energy sector is not the only problem. We all are in how we sprawl our cities, build our buildings and mindlessly use energy and pamper ourselves in our methods and modes of transportation. I think I have illustrated already the insufficient concern we show as a society for the weakest, most vulnerable and least capable in our society. We blame the government as if we are somehow not responsible for the consequences of how we voted or if we did not vote.
All these things tie together and inter-relate. One thing for sure, on a dais giving a speech at the Empire Club in Toronto, one Alberta Minister let her personal views and values about how to properly raise a family show clearly and concisely. Agree or disagree with her as you will but at least we have a politician expressing a personal opinion about a serious social public policy matter in a way that gets people thinking and talking. That does not happen enough in mature and pathetically passive democracies like Alberta.
Criticize her position if you choose. But at least for a few moments, seriously consider the concern, the context and the consequences of her comments. Then come to your own considered opinion based on your values and capabilities to do the right thing for your children, your family and yes – your community too. When it comes to raising kids “properly” it takes at least a viable village and a viable family with capable parents. We are all in this together; alone!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Twitter, Timezones and Terror in Iran
There are people all over the planet following the events in Iran on Twitter using #iranelection and #gr88 hashtags as a search tool. The pictures and video the Iranian Twitterers are able to get out of the country is truly amazing - especially under the dangerous circumstances they are in. The current theocracy is trying to shut down all media and communications out of Iran by blocking the Internet and bloggers plus the usual expulsion of the international media.
There are reports that media and bloggers are being arrested by Iranian military and a number of people have been killed in the streets by the military crackdown too. The next steps, taken last night, was for the military to mark the doors of the Tehran homes of suspected supporters of the rebellion. The Twitterverse was full of information about this targeting and distributed instructions on how to remove the door markings. Realizing how difficult it was to remove the door markings the follow up tweets was suggesting that ALL residential doors in the city. Don't know what the final result was but this is an example of how command and control centralized governments are being neutered by the dynamics of horizontal decentralized networks of engaged citizens.
Iran has an enormous and active blogging community, with Farsi being the 4th ranked language in the blogosphere. Not really surprising when you realize that 50% of the population of Iran is 30 years old or younger. Tough to imagine how arresting some bloggers will stop the rest. It will most likely embolden the rest to find ways to get the stories of the military crackdown and brutality out of Iran.
Twitter is still working well at getting the word out and informing the world about what is going on in the streets of Iran. It is also being used by Iranian officials posting tweets as a countervailing force using misinformation tweets. There are reports that the Iranian "government" is now targeting citizens who are on Twitter as part of the crackdown and retaliation against the dissidents and demonstrators. The Iranian "government" is using the timezone portion of the Twitter profiles of members to find these people who are using Twitter to thwart the communications clampdown the authorities are trying to impose.
The Twitterverse response to this targeting of Iranian dissidents is to ask the millions of the rest of us Twitter-types t0 change our profiles to the Tehran timezone so it will be more difficult to find the true Iranian Twitterers. I change my profile 10 minutes ago and encourage every one else on Twitter to do the same.
There are reports that media and bloggers are being arrested by Iranian military and a number of people have been killed in the streets by the military crackdown too. The next steps, taken last night, was for the military to mark the doors of the Tehran homes of suspected supporters of the rebellion. The Twitterverse was full of information about this targeting and distributed instructions on how to remove the door markings. Realizing how difficult it was to remove the door markings the follow up tweets was suggesting that ALL residential doors in the city. Don't know what the final result was but this is an example of how command and control centralized governments are being neutered by the dynamics of horizontal decentralized networks of engaged citizens.
Iran has an enormous and active blogging community, with Farsi being the 4th ranked language in the blogosphere. Not really surprising when you realize that 50% of the population of Iran is 30 years old or younger. Tough to imagine how arresting some bloggers will stop the rest. It will most likely embolden the rest to find ways to get the stories of the military crackdown and brutality out of Iran.
Twitter is still working well at getting the word out and informing the world about what is going on in the streets of Iran. It is also being used by Iranian officials posting tweets as a countervailing force using misinformation tweets. There are reports that the Iranian "government" is now targeting citizens who are on Twitter as part of the crackdown and retaliation against the dissidents and demonstrators. The Iranian "government" is using the timezone portion of the Twitter profiles of members to find these people who are using Twitter to thwart the communications clampdown the authorities are trying to impose.
The Twitterverse response to this targeting of Iranian dissidents is to ask the millions of the rest of us Twitter-types t0 change our profiles to the Tehran timezone so it will be more difficult to find the true Iranian Twitterers. I change my profile 10 minutes ago and encourage every one else on Twitter to do the same.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Musings and Misgivings About Being a Progressive Albertan
I have been getting a lot of emails from readers asking why I have not been posting this last week and why I have not posted anything about the Iris Evans comments about preferred parenting at the Empire Club in Toronto last week.
Well, as for the first question, I have been out of town working on a major project that captures my imagination so I have not been in a blogging head space. As for the second issue, I have been mulling about the Iris Evans comments on preferred parenting and will do a blog post late tomorrow on it. My working title is "Deconstructing Iris." What do you think?
I am also working on a major blog post on the recent vote in the Whitemud PC constituency to forward a resolution to the PC Party Executive to have a debate on repealing the opting out provisions of what was Bill 44 and now the new Alberta Human Rights Act at the party AGM in November. This is a very positive development but the reactionary social conservatives and partisan panderers in the Alberta PC Party could push this issue off the Progressive Conservative political agenda for the November AGM pretty easily if only it is only the Whitemud that has any balls.
As for the gratuitous advice from former Premier Ralph Klein on how to mishandle the Alberta economy by the mindless mathematics of across the board cuts, I think the less said about his approach to governance in Alberta the better.
I will be active re-engaged and posting plenty next week. Stay tuned.
Well, as for the first question, I have been out of town working on a major project that captures my imagination so I have not been in a blogging head space. As for the second issue, I have been mulling about the Iris Evans comments on preferred parenting and will do a blog post late tomorrow on it. My working title is "Deconstructing Iris." What do you think?
I am also working on a major blog post on the recent vote in the Whitemud PC constituency to forward a resolution to the PC Party Executive to have a debate on repealing the opting out provisions of what was Bill 44 and now the new Alberta Human Rights Act at the party AGM in November. This is a very positive development but the reactionary social conservatives and partisan panderers in the Alberta PC Party could push this issue off the Progressive Conservative political agenda for the November AGM pretty easily if only it is only the Whitemud that has any balls.
As for the gratuitous advice from former Premier Ralph Klein on how to mishandle the Alberta economy by the mindless mathematics of across the board cuts, I think the less said about his approach to governance in Alberta the better.
I will be active re-engaged and posting plenty next week. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)