What does this mean - really?

On CNN, George Bush is quoted as saying

"No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon."

Unusual for GWB is a statement that actually seems to acknowledge that the international community has a role here:

"We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them."

The question I have is simple - if Iran's programme is reasonably advanced, chances are they already have the capability to create nuclear weapons. The basic technology is pretty well understood, and the only task for a nation to accomplish is to create the base facilities for refining various materials used in the bomb itself. I'd be guessing, but I don't imagine that Iran (or any of a dozen other countries not "officially" part of the A-Bomb club) is all that far from being there.

To me, the question quickly becomes one in which we must ask who, if anyone, on this world has the wisdom to be accorded the right to hold such weapons? I personally don't subscribe to the notion that any nation is "inherently good", and therefore will not make a mistake with these weapons.

If the worry is over having nuclear capability fall into "terrorist hands", then treat it as such. To a certain degree, the issue is no longer if a country is capable of developing nuclear weapons, but rather when. Since terrorist organizations do not possess the financial and infrastructure resources that a nation state has, one would have to presume that the only way they would be able to acquire any kind of nuclear capability would be through black market channels.

So - if Iran, or any other country, is developing nuclear capabilities, the question is no longer a matter of the capability, but rather of accountability. Are all of the materials accounted for? Are the procedures around the materials sufficiently rigorous to identify when something has gone missing? What we should be looking for is to ensure that paths into the black market have been closed out. If they aren't, we need to ensure that the country in question takes appropriate steps.

Simply stating that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons capability is silly. The fact is that a determined government will find a way to make it happen - openly or not. The sabre-rattling "not on my watch" attitude is missing the point - military intervention is the wrong answer. No nation in the world has sufficient militar resources to garrison all of the areas that are potential threats to it. Rome, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire all suffered the same basic fate in this regard.

The one thing that is true is that this is a new era. More than just 9/11 underscores that fact. The world is a 'smaller place' than it used to be - communications technology makes it easier for information to flow between nations; economies are now cross linked in ways that have never happened before. These things all speak to a new era. It is an era where military might is unlikely to 'rule the day' for any length of time. The nations of the world need to learn new ways to resolve disputes and move forward.

The United Nations was a good start - it at least opened the door to dialogue between nations. Today, it has begun to run into limitations that stem from it's pre-cold war structure, and needs to be reconsidered. The UN needs to evolve. In order for that to happen, countries like the US and France need to give up their "veto" powers; the so-called "Security Council" needs to be radically re-structured so that it reflects today's realities.

Just When I Think It's Getting Quiet

I was driving into work this morning, and listening to Rod Love and Ralph Klein expound on the lack of a need for a lobbyist registry in this province.

Says Rod Love - sometimes you can have "too much public scrutiny". (This is a quote from a debate broadcast on CBC last week)

Says Ralph - "I don't hear anybody clamoring for it"

This is near the top of my list of reasons why Ralph and his buddies need to go. For those not familiar with the relationship between Rod Love and Ralph Klein, Rod Love served as Klein's "right-hand man" dating back to his years as mayor of the city of Calgary, and was in a similar position when Klein moved into the Premier's office in Edmonton. He is now a 'consultant', apparently to both the government, and to groups that want access to the ears of the government.

I heard this, along with some very nicely done commentary from a University of Calgary professor that specializes in ethics (is there such a thing as an ethical politician???) , and I found myself thinking that Ralph, and his advisors, are even more clueless than I had initially expected. Basically, the government's position seems to be that if there's no law against something, it's not a problem. Wrong! Part of accountability is clarity - when there's a great wall of fog over the activities of the government, it becomes very difficult to understand what's going on up in Edmonton.

Along with a number of other items that Klein's bandits have been engaging in, this is part of a growing list that points to the overgrown, arrogant nature of the "Progressive Conservative" party in Alberta.

• No lobbyist registry - the electorate doesn't have a right to know who's trying to influence government policy??? (Rod Love's comment is pure poppycock - King John said the same sort of thing when he was forced to sign the Magna Carta. Public scrutiny of that King did wonders for the people)
  
• A shrinking amount of time spent in the legislature. (Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the fall sitting shrinking to a laughable 10 days)
• No real debate going on in the legislature. Even when the legislature is in session, there is precious little substantive debate going on. Part of this is the lack of opposition seats (only 10 this term), but the other part is an attitude on the part of the governing party that makes them feel they can belittle the issues raised by the opposition rather than answer to them.

I don't want to argue that we _need_ a lobbyist registry - I'm not actually sure it would buy us anything in particular. However, Ralph's response to the suggestion basically speaks to the underlying approach of his government. Leadership is not on the agenda. Ralph doesn't lead - he bends with the political winds. If there were a public outcry over this, he'd institute one as quick as possible. (Although, hobbled to the point of being useless, no doubt)

The other thing that I find profoundly troubling lately has been a rash of legal challenges to candidate nominations that are popping up in the run up to an expected November provincial election. The Conservative party has had several nominations turn into court fights after prospective candidates were arbitrarily disqualified in favour of the incumbent. One of these kinds of battles would make me shrug it off as "normal politics". However, when we start seeing several such suits emerge, from across the province, I have to start suspecting that the rot that I believe has set in at the higher levels of the party is in fact pervasive through the entire structure. This kind of rot means that we have a group who not only believes they will be elected next time, but they are in fact presuming such to be the case. This is very bad news for the citizens of Alberta. Once a party starts to believe that they have a right to govern, the public interest will be usurped by the interests of the party members only.

An Few Random Thoughts

It's been a few days since I last wrote anything - I've been a bit busy, and for the most part relatively little has been happening in the news. (Is that an election on the winds? Ralph's started to get quiet...hmmm)

Provincially, I see the governing Conservatives are starting to talk about issuing Bonds to finance major infrastructure projects. All I can say is "well, Duh!". Sometime back in the 1980's, the notion of government bonds became a 'bad word', and everything had to be financed out of General Revenues. (or so it seemed) I can only imagine that was a result of Don Getty's complete inability to understand the difference between infrastructure and day to day operations.

For the last 15 years, Ralph's bunch has been hammering away at deficit, and then at debt. Trying to wipe out both, claiming that the existence of either constitutes bad governance. While I agree that using long term debt to finance day to day operations of the government isn't the wisest path, I have never seen a problem with doing so to finance roads, hospitals and other infrastructure. I have to finance my house in order to afford it (like I, or anyone else can just write a cheque for $200,000+ dollars to purchase property!). The same thing applies to roads and other long term projects.

To hear this coming out of Ralph's people now is a combination of sad and funny at the same time. Floating bonds in the early 1990s to pay for desperately needed schools, hospitals and roads would have done wonders for our province's infrastructure. Instead, they have presided over the steady decline of our province's infrastructure while the government racks up huge amounts of money in "budgetary surpluses".

Okay, I have to give them some credit - at least they seem to be starting to consider how to deal with long term financing requirements as different from how they deal with operational financing. Does this make the current bunch in Edmonton ready to govern for another four years? No. I'm too skeptical of them to believe that this speaks to a real change in their thinking. We still need to send back a serious opposition to hold the next government to account. Ralph and his people aren't statesmen, and the current tussle with Ottawa over Health Care continues to demonstrate an emotional immaturity that I find profoundly disturbing.

In Iraq, I see the US/British "coalition" forces are busy trying to stabilize the situation in preparation for elections scheduled for early 2005. Meanwhile, casualties on all sides continue to mount at a rate that seems to exceed those incurred during the initial invasion. Kidnappings of foreigners in Iraq are happening at a pace that is truly disturbing; various militant forces seem to be rather successfully carrying out bomb attacks of one sort or another.

Is this a country ready to undertake open elections? I doubt it. I can't imagine how you could consider any vote valid in a country where signifcant regions of it are embroiled in violence, and various militias are continuing to press for their own agendas - mostly through military force. Any government elected under such conditions will not be seen as legitimate by the various factions, and will only stand as long as foreign military presence continues to be able to overwhelm the various militias.

What I'd Like In Health Care

Is a plan. Lately, we've had all of our various talking heads running about talking about pouring more and more money into our nation's health care system, and all of the premiers talking about how they have to retain individual control over the process of "delivering" the services.

From my standpoint, everyone is talking about money, but I see very few people talking about what our public health system is about. What are the objectives? What is the plan? Where do we want to go?

There is an enormous amount of emotionally loaded material being thrown around, and very little of it has anything to do with any common understanding of what the issues are, or what the objectives mean. I go absolutely numb every time I hear Ralph Klein babble about "sustainability" - what the hell does that mean anyhow? Does that mean that he doesn't want to spend the money, or does it mean something else? How does moving to a private, clinic-based delivery for day to day services improve that picture?

Money's fine, and the system certainly needs it. In the bigger picture, we need to stand back for a moment or two and determine what it is we want our health care system to be, and then describe it in reasonable terms. Nothing is going to happen overnight - nor should it. I believe that we can make an effective, and "sustainable" health care system that handles everybody equitably. We won't get there if we aren't speaking a common language, and understanding what each other are saying.

Ralph and crew seem hell-bent on one particular model of health care - what bothers me is that I have no clear idea what that model is, nor am I a particularly convinced that the real problems are being addressed by the direction being proposed. I imagine that similar problems exist in other provinces as well.

Let's create a dialogue on the subject - a common frame of reference is needed, and currently is sadly lacking.

There are days ...

... where I wonder just how incredibly clueless our premier is.

Listening to CBC this morning, I heard Ralph Klein speak at possibly his most arrogant. He was commenting on "meaningful public consultation", and trying to slam the Alberta Liberals for "acting as if it can be done at the drop of a hat" {not a literal quote}.

If anyone has been watching, Ralph's "public consultations" to date have qualified as leading at best, and fundamentally useless for gathering any meaningful consensus. The most recent attempt at such a "consultation" is the "It's your future" pre-election campaign. A quick survey of the questions shows them to be leading, superficial and overly simplistic. There are motherhood statements all over the place, and many things are simply not adequately qualified. (Just what is a "world class education system"???)

What really got me irritated was the Premier's closing statement - "The Liberals have no idea what's involved in government, and they never will, thank god". Mr. Klein appears to be a little to 'fat, dumb and happy' in power. He clearly believes that the Conservatives will automatically form another massive majority government in November.

Given the proclivity of the Alberta voter to act like a bunch of sheep, there's a good possibility of this. However, it is vitally important to the long term future of this province that the electorate start sending back something other than a Conservative. The absence of any effective opposition in the last ten years has allowed the Conservatives to become arrogant, and ideologically dogmatic. They do not feel they have to listen to their constituencies unless they feel like it.

In a perfect world, we'd all have fired Ralph about 5 years ago - largely for failing to do the job we've elected him to do - govern. Realistically, I'd be happy if we sent back a near-minority government this time. Give Klein his majority - by one or two seats - max! The rest needs to be opposition. In this province, we do ourselves no favours to continue electing what amounts to a dictatorship time and again.

How Cluelesss Can Ralph Be???

All over the news today is Ralph wondering what all the fuss is over his departure from the First Ministers' Health Conference.

About all I can do is wonder at the incredible thickness of this province's premier. Ralph - you wonder what all the fuss is about - let me, and the voters of this province, tell you:

• It's about commitment to good government. If Health Care issues are at or near the top of the list of priorities in this province, then why the hell aren't you FRONT AND CENTER when there is a discussion going on with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
• It's about galavanting off and playing around in a Casino when the people under your government are expecting, nay demanding, that you be a key player.
• It's about showing up to a speech to the Heavy Oil Exhibition in Lloydminster, and engaging in electioneering when the job of governing has been left neglected.
• It's about delegating to your ministers jobs that you should be front and center on. Gary Mar should be part of that discussion, but YOU have a job to do as well Mr. Klein.
• It's about cuddling up to large corporate interests without paying attention to your oft-referred to "Mr. and Mrs. Grundy". I am one of those "Grundys", Ralph, and I'm damnably irritated with your arrogance now.

Perhaps, along with other recent shenanigans, such as showing up at publicity events, but not working with the other premiers in this country, this little escapade will further underscore to the citizens of this province that you ARE NOT FIT TO GOVERN any longer. When cuddling up with the oil patch takes precedence over dealing with issues that really do affect the public interests.

Or just maybe, your eagerness to hop in bed with private enterprise health care interests, and your evasiveness about what you want to "innovatively" change the health care system to look like, is a clue. You're not interested in the people of this province - people cost money, corporations with lots of cash donate it to your party. Hmmm...could it be that just maybe you have a few political debts, and you know that you have to repay them before your days as Premier expire? (Of course, this is wild speculation on my part, the PC party in this province guards its books more closely than the US guards what it is doing in Guantanamo Bay)

Ralph, I think you know what the issue is with your failure to be involved. As the 'Senior Premier' at the table, it is your job to build bridges, to help the other Premiers find a common path on which to ally, and to help find ways that the path can be aligned with the Federal Government. It is appalling to me that you have failed to even step up to the plate for that task. You have failed both the people of Alberta, and the people of Canada, Ralph.

Health Care Conferences...

It amazes me to no end - King Ralph has been one of the most vocal of our premiers about the issues of funding and structuring our national health care system for a long time. He has complained incessantly about it - lack of funding, overreaching costs, the need for "innovative" delivery etc. Yet, here we are, with a new Federal Government, under a new leader (Paul Martin), and Ralph's still playing the same petulant little games.

For the first time since Jean Chretien came to power, there seems to be a willingness on the part of the Federal Government to re-evaluate its own role in the health care game - one of the first things that the Martin government has done is put an open conference on. I don't for a minute believe that this conference is going to solve everything, but it is a start.

What's King Ralph's response? "I'll only be there for the first day" - claiming that he's got "other engagements". Is this like the "vacation" you were on during the recent First Minister's conference that you couldn't be bothered to attend, Ralph? You remember - the one where you suddenly turned up at all of these public ceremonies of one sort or another.

Of course, Ralph's been rumbling for some time about his government's own ideas for Health Care. Supposed "innovative" solutions which apparently keep dying out every time he puts them up to the litmus test of public opinion. There was a hospital to be built in south Calgary - as a "P3" project no less. For some reason, the P3 seems to have fizzled, and the CHR is busy setting itself up to build the hospital using more conventional strategies.

I think Ralph's real problem is that he's gotten so used to operating behind closed doors that an open meeting forum (particularly one with the media present...) scares him. As premier of this province, his governments do the vast majority of their work as 'order-in-council', and not in the forum of the Legislature. (One only has to look back over time to notice that the legislature sits two sessions - one in Spring, one in Fall - and the fall sitting has become laughably short. Meanwhile, all of the real announcements of what's going on seem to come out during the times the legislature isn't sitting.

Of course, Ralph's rebuttal is going to be the obvious - "You don't understand - the public parts of politics aren't where the real work takes place, so the Health Conference is a sham". I suppose there's a certain truth value to that statement. Generally thieves don't like people seeing them doing their business either - they much prefer to rob houses when they are empty.

Realistically, useful policy changes aren't going to happen in 3 days - I know this, and I don't have any illusions about it. However, it disgusts me when the Premier of Alberta can't even make the effort to try and work with a new government in Ottawa. Alberta is in the best economic straights it's ever been in - period. Now is the time for Alberta and its government to step to the table as a major player and make a difference. Crawling off to sulk, as Klein seems wont to do when he knows he won't get his way, is non-productive.

I for one, am tired of Ralph's constant whinging about the "bad old Feds". Come on, Ralph, Alberta's old nemesis - Pierre Trudeau - is dead and buried. Let's leave the wounds of that era to heal. Alberta hasn't been a marginalized player on the Federal scene for years now. Let's step up to the table, and make it clear that we are a major player in this country - one on par with Ontario and Quebec in terms of economic clout. A Premier who behaves like a petulant little child will be treated as one - and this province may well find itself marginalized again if this doesn't change.