Chandler Attempts to Influence Civic Election

Not satisfied with trying to run his own slate of candidates in the Civic Election, we find Chandler's PGIB group trying to "quiz" candidates on their policy platforms.

Two things strike me as demonstrating not only blatant bias, but the intellectual dishonesty of this little exercise. From the PGIB release posted on "Project Alberta":

The following candidates responded to the survey: Al Noor Kassam, Sandy Jenkins, Al Foster, Jonathan Sunstrum and Jeremy Zhao (Please note David Bronconnier was not sent the survey).

The following candidates ranked a perfect score to all our questions: Al Noor Kassam, Jeremy Zhao, Jonathan Sunstrum and Al Foster

Let's start at the top. The survey was not even sent to one of the candidates for Mayor. While I seriously doubt that Bronconnier's team would have graced Chandler's obviously biased quiz with a response, there is a fundamental dishonesty that comes with sending a "platform questionnaire" out and deliberately excluding one of the candidates.

Moving along, I find it striking that so many candidates "had a perfect score". This tells you a great deal. From looking at Chandler's questions, it's not difficult to guess what answers he was fishing for, but that is far from the point. In matters of public policy, there are few absolutes, and to be so naive as to believe that there are "right answers" to such questions as the revenues from taxation required to operate the city is really quite pathetic. (Remember George Bush Sr. say "read my lips, no new taxes"??)

Reality is that Calgary taxpayers are having to pick up the burden for a fifteen year long period when there was no funding for infrastructure from the provincial government, and the city is growing at rather a frightful pace - increasing the load placed upon civic services, and increasing the salaries that must be paid to our civil servants in order for them to be able to live in this city.

His list of endorsements for various Aldermanic races reads like a who's who of right wingnuttia in Calgary:

Alderman
Ward 3 - Jim Stevenson
Ward 4 - Richard Evans
Ward 6 - James Istvanffy
Ward 7 - Merle Terleski
Ward 8 - Steve Chapman
Ward 12 - Ric McIver

Offhand, two of those people (McIver and Chapman) I can tie back to Chandler directly; Evans and Chandler associate with each other to some degree on "Project Alberta". Istvanffy is a former advisor to Rob Anders (*shudder*). I'm not overly familiar with Merle Terlesky, but if he's the guy that shows up when I google the name as a "pro lifer" in Kamloops and a few other other places, that would fit (this is an unproven linkage - I'm guessing based on a few bits and pieces). Jim Stevenson is the only candidate in the list that I can't find much about that ties him to much of anything.

As for Chandler's endorsement of Alnoor, that pretty much seals where my vote isn't going.

Schadenfreude - Was Evans' Blog Hacked?

I have no idea who did this, but sometimes schadenfreude happens.

It appears that Mr. Evans' blog got hacked in the last couple of days:



The header appears to have been replaced with a series of "spam linkage" for online (read bootleg) pharmacies.

You might want to talk to your hosting provider, Richard, it seems that their security (or yours) has been well and truly breached.

You Reap What You Sow...

Apparently, Richard took his war with blogger "Canadian Cynic" to the press:

Richard Evans, who is running in Ward 4, said an anonymous blogger has been defaming him on his website and posting his address, phone number and the names of his wife and two children.

Now, I'll let Cynic's own commentary speak to the issues of the accusations being tossed about. Frankly, I tend to be of the opinion that both parties are acting childish.

BUT - CC is not putting himself forward to sit on Calgary's City Council, either. Richard Evans is.

Voters in Calgary's Ward 4 have a question to ask themselves when they put their "X" on a ballot in a little less than two weeks' time: "Will we be represented effectively by this man?". Will "effective" representation come from a man whose conduct is childish, immature or even in amazingly bad taste, such as taunting victims of sexual assault?

Whether Evans stands much of a chance against Bob Hawkesworth is open to debate. Frankly, I'll be looking for someone who has a little more maturity in their conduct - and a little less tendency to devolve into taunting when he disagrees with someone. Politics is the art of compromise, and the behaviour shown by Evans to date shows us someone who "wins" arguments by belittlement. Not exactly promising.

Now that's just irrational...

Over here we get a little more insight into Ward 4 Candidate for Alderman Evans.

Apparently it's his idea of "fair play" to purchase 'soundalike' domains and claim that other bloggers support pedophilia, racists or whatever.

But, when the bloggers in question turn things about and turn similar accusations on Mr. Evans, that's suddenly grounds for libel suits and attempts to publicly "unmask" writers who use pseudonyms on the web. (and no, I don't buy the sophistry Evans puts forth in his comments section about "trying to inform" - it looks too much like Evans is trying self-justify acting like a complete ass)

It's far from the first time that Evans has resorted to bullying other bloggers (when he isn't just trying to taunt them).

Actions speak louder than words - Evans' actions are those of a man who even while he is trying to put forward a "reasonable" front during an election, we find him running off at the mouth on his own blog, or making childish videos in an attempt to slag his fellow candidates. It speaks volumes about a man who aspires to sit on city council for one of Canada's larger cities - and I don't think it's exactly promising.

What's going to happen the when he starts getting criticized in the media? He's going to sue them too? Or is he going to have a Stephen Harper style tantrum about it and try to shut the media out entirely?

Campaigning by the Children

It seems that Richard Evans' idea of "campaigning" is to sit around trying to slag his opponent by making silly little videos of them.

Oh, how amusing - try to "humiliate" Bob Hawkesworth by casting him in the female role to Jack Layton - using a cheezy little framework put together by JibJab. Oh, the humiliation that Bob H. must be feeling right now.

Frankly, this kind of juvenile crap is about what I would have expected out of "student council" elections - when I was in grade 7.

But, coming from a small man who laughs at victims of rape, cybersquats on domains to make other bloggers "look bad", and doesn't actually respond to criticism of his notions, but instead descends into attacking the author, I don't suppose we should be overly surprised.

Let me give you a little hint, Richard - there's a little more to being a politician than simply trying to slag your opponents with childish ad-hominem attacks. You might actually want to put forward real ideas...that haven't already passed their "best before" date.

Richard Evans Is Channeling Chandler

What is it with these people?

First this week, we get Craig Chandler ranting about how you must vote Conservative or LEAVE Alberta!. Chandler's hard-nosed tirade was nothing more than a mean spirited tirade against people who dare disagree with his perception of Alberta's politics. (which may well be in the process of swinging away from the PC's)

Then we get Richard Evans complaining about all the money we spend on the homeless in Calgary.

According to Mr. Evans' thinking, 13% of the homeless moved here moved here to specifically suck off the public teat.

Why does he claim this? Because the statistics he's been looking at show the following:

Among absolutely homeless individuals who were surveyed, the most frequently cited reasons for coming to Calgary were:

[…]

7% - better access to services (health or social services, including schools)

6% - more / better shelter accommodations

[…]

Of course, what he fails to admit is that these reasons may well be one of many reasons that drew someone to Calgary, second he assumes that the reasons are mutually exclusive. (I don't have the study's questionnaire at hand, so I'm going to guess that they probably aren't mutually exclusive) That aside, I think the other end of Richard's statistics is equally important - by far the vast majority of homeless people are there for reasons other than intentionally being a drain on public resources.

So, according to Mr. Evans, the money required to look after these people is approximately 110 new police officers. While I think there is merit in expanding Calgary's law enforcement agency, I don't think it's exactly wise - or appropriate - to do so by punishing the homeless further. Poverty is not a problem that you deal with by putting more police on the streets.

Both Chandler and Evans exhibit the worst attributes of modern-day conservative ethos - a hostile mean-spiritedness that brooks no opposition, and is devoid of compassion for others whose lot in life is less fortunate.

The Statistics Don't Match Fantasy

Or, at least that's how the latest from Richard Evans reads.

Basically, Richard is getting upset because the definition of homelessness includes people who 'couch surf' because they have no fixed address, or are in the midst of some kind of personal crisis - as well as including those who live on the street and quite literally have no home.

On one level, I can sort of appreciate that Richard is attempting to criticize the existing statistics for not be adequately precise in their definition. (and, based on his snarky, but otherwise vacuous, comments he believes that any argument built on the existing statistics is by definition invalid):

Here’s the point: the current stats are skewed. They’re bunk. Without a proper breakdown between the number of “really homeless” vs the “homeless but not really homeless”, they’re not providing any real information on the actual number of people on our streets.

Period.

Keep that in mind when the candidates and social activists start throwing “homeless” numbers around in the run up to the civic election…

Actually, what Mr. Evans clearly is failing to comprehend is that homelessness, like a variety of other human conditions is expressed in a wide range of different ways. Some people have "family resources" that they can draw upon that rescue them from the truly destructive aspects of living on the streets (such as sleeping outside in sub-zero temperatures).

He is also failing to recognize that all of these people collectively place pressures on the housing and social support networks in the city. People who, for any of a dozen different reasons cannot find a place to call home - whether that is a temporary or long-term situation are an indication of problems within the city.

In Calgary, someone living in the city is going to have a struggle to find any kind of home that they can afford if their income is much below $2,000 / month - at least not if they want to be able to eat. (Calgary's rental market is running at record low vacancy rates, and rental of even a small apartment is pushing over $1000 in most of the city. (I'm sure that there are a few exceptions, but not many)

Someone who is "couch surfing" between friends is still homeless - no matter what hallucinations Mr. Evans may have to the contrary. They don't have the basics - like a stable mailing address or telephone number - which makes it considerably harder to access the very social programs that can help break the cycle.

Perhaps more disturbing is the observation that homeless people often suffer greatly increased rates of mental illness - ranging from relatively manageable conditions such as stress to more serious conditions like schizophrenia. The first thing that most mentally ill people need is stability - and being homeless is guaranteed instability in life.

The condition of homelessness tells us a great deal about the threshold at which someone is living in poverty because of their income (or lack of it). Right now, in Calgary, that bar's gotten pretty high.

But then again, poverty is just a matter of "poor decisions" ... at least in Mr. Evans' mind.

So This Would Be "Compassionate Conservatism"?

Over at Richard Evans' blog, we find him posting as follows about an alleged sexual assault in Ottawa:

What kind of man allows himself to be sexually assaulted by another man? In public, with no weapons involved? Are we really turning into a nation of wimps where no one fights back anymore?

Waitasec, here. First of all, I can imagine a dozen different situations where you can be overpowered - no matter how muscle-bound you are. Second, just because someone is assaulted doesn't make them - as Richard puts it - a "Girly-Man".

In fact, Richard's use of that epithet is an example of precisely why so few sexual assaults against men are actually reported. Our society still has such a hang-up about the very possibility that a male might be sexually assaulted that people like Richard seem to think that reporting the assault is a sign of weakness on the part of the victim.

The real fact here is that aside from the victim and the assailant, the only other people who have a clue what happened are the police (and only by the statement of the victim at this point) Also, the victim's actions - or lack of them - are utterly irrelevant here. A crime has been committed, and to the credit of the victim, they had the personal fortitude to report it - in spite of the ignorant denouncements of people like Mr. Evans.

Frankly, the assumption that the victim "didn't do anything" (or "enough") to defend themselves in this case is as vile and repugnant to me as the classic "she was dressed provocatively" defense you used to hear in rape cases.

Rape is rape. I don't give a damn about the gender of the victim (or the perpetrator for that matter) - it's a crime and deserves to be punished. We should be focusing on the rapist, not persecuting the victim.