I opened my front door to retrieve my mail this morning, only to find that the Alberta Government's latest waste of my time and money.
Folded in amongst the assorted admail that is the bulk of what Canada Post seems to deliver to my door these days, I found a shiny, full color brochure extolling the virtues of Ralph's non-plan for wasting the Alberta Government's surplus.
Of course, the geniuses in Edmonton are busy extolling how they've increased spending on Education and Health Care since 1997. Of course, this merely conceals the fact that all they've done is restore things to the levels they were at prior to starting the blind cutbacks of the late 1980's and early '90s.
I've ranted before at how I disagree with King Ralph's use of government surplus monies. Today, I what I received was confirmation of my suspicions. The government went all out on this thing - it's a full process colour job done on a fairly heavy weight gloss paper. This isn't cheap work people. If the Government needs to spend money like that to convince me that it's doing the "right thing" with our money, then they aren't doing "the right thing". A good idea needs no selling.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Friday, November 04, 2005
Demonstrated Cluelessness
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. Stephen Harper has just released the "What He'd Do To Clean Up Government" plan.
Superficially, it doesn't sound all bad:
Except that none of those are the problem areas. This does exactly nothing to ensure that the senior civil servants are appropriately managed; it does nothing to shuffle people within the civil service so that they do not become overly entrenched in a role. Look at who has been fingered as a result of the Gomery Report - beside Chretien, all the rest of them are senior bureaucrats and people in industry.
The only thing that Harper has done is address some of the blatant garbage that goes on in Alberta (E.g. Rod Love - who alternates roles between Klein's Chief-of-Stiff and Industry-Lobbyist depending on what day of the week it is.)
Did Harper read the same Gomery Report that the rest of us saw? Or was there the special "Stephen Harper Autographed Fantasy Edition" that only he got?!
Superficially, it doesn't sound all bad:
The three main planks of Harper's proposed accountability act are:
* Eliminating all remaining corporate and union donations to federal political parties, and restricting individual donations to $1,000 per person.
* Banning all ministers and their political aides from becoming government lobbyists for at least five years from the date they leave their political positions.
* Giving the auditor general the power to "follow the money to the end recipients" as she or he undertakes a review of the $30 billion handed out each year in the form of federal grants, contributions and contracts.
Except that none of those are the problem areas. This does exactly nothing to ensure that the senior civil servants are appropriately managed; it does nothing to shuffle people within the civil service so that they do not become overly entrenched in a role. Look at who has been fingered as a result of the Gomery Report - beside Chretien, all the rest of them are senior bureaucrats and people in industry.
The only thing that Harper has done is address some of the blatant garbage that goes on in Alberta (E.g. Rod Love - who alternates roles between Klein's Chief-of-Stiff and Industry-Lobbyist depending on what day of the week it is.)
Did Harper read the same Gomery Report that the rest of us saw? Or was there the special "Stephen Harper Autographed Fantasy Edition" that only he got?!
In The Minds Of Idiots
Recently, I've seen a number of people claiming that BushCo didn't lie to the people in the run-up to Iraq. This is mostly based on the slightly flawed notion that various reports have come out criticizing the intelligence gathering agencies rather than the policy makers using that intelligence.
There's more than a few problems with absolving BushCo of mistruths in the rhetoric leading up to invading Iraq in 2003.
First, is a matter of the shifting story. Initially, Bush tried to tie invading Iraq to 9/11. When that failed, Bush changed tactics and began to wave the bogey-man "Weapons of Mass Destruction" around. By this time, a few people were getting more than a little suspicious that just maybe there was a problem with this concept. Sure enough, following the invasion and demise of the Iraqi government, it became quite clear that whatever WMD's Hussein had were no longer in existence. There were a few other feints made, vague allegations that Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots on various topics, but none of those allegations have ever been demonstrated in any concrete and reasonable form.
If BushCo didn't lie in the run up to Iraq, they certainly changed their story enough times. Politicians are like small children - every time you catch them in a lie, they change their story. Let's suppose for a minute that Bush was telling the "truth" as presented to him by his advisors. Surely, he could have seen through the transparency of the problems with the scenarios being alleged? It's hard to imagine that any nominally sentient being could not see the inconsistencies of the story that they are spinning. If Bush didn't lie, he certainly failed horribly to apply the most basic critical thinking techniques to what was being presented to him by his inner circle.
If he didn't lie about Iraq, his advisors did. In either case, Bush failed his country and launched a war which the world will be paying for in the decades to come.
There's more than a few problems with absolving BushCo of mistruths in the rhetoric leading up to invading Iraq in 2003.
First, is a matter of the shifting story. Initially, Bush tried to tie invading Iraq to 9/11. When that failed, Bush changed tactics and began to wave the bogey-man "Weapons of Mass Destruction" around. By this time, a few people were getting more than a little suspicious that just maybe there was a problem with this concept. Sure enough, following the invasion and demise of the Iraqi government, it became quite clear that whatever WMD's Hussein had were no longer in existence. There were a few other feints made, vague allegations that Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots on various topics, but none of those allegations have ever been demonstrated in any concrete and reasonable form.
If BushCo didn't lie in the run up to Iraq, they certainly changed their story enough times. Politicians are like small children - every time you catch them in a lie, they change their story. Let's suppose for a minute that Bush was telling the "truth" as presented to him by his advisors. Surely, he could have seen through the transparency of the problems with the scenarios being alleged? It's hard to imagine that any nominally sentient being could not see the inconsistencies of the story that they are spinning. If Bush didn't lie, he certainly failed horribly to apply the most basic critical thinking techniques to what was being presented to him by his inner circle.
If he didn't lie about Iraq, his advisors did. In either case, Bush failed his country and launched a war which the world will be paying for in the decades to come.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Alberta's Puritans
The timing of this just amazes me. A day or so after I write a rant about the moral double standards of the far right, we get a little glimpse into the Alberta Government's position and directions.
It seems that our Minister of Justice, Ron Stevens, wants to make it possible for children to sue their mothers if they are injured in automotive accidents while mom is pregnant.
Superficially, this almost seems reasonable in a tragic situation where a baby is born severely disabled as a result of an automobile accident. Right now, if the mother was the 'at fault' party in the accident, the unborn child cannot sue their parents for their negligence. Ostensibly, this law would open up the ability for the mother's insurance company to be held financially liable for the costs incurred as result of the child's disabilities.
I'm sympathetic, it's always tragic when a child is born with serious disabilities, all the more so when those disabilities are the result of an accident. The burden that families of disabled people bear are huge - both financially and emotionally.
However, this particular law raises other alarms for me. It opens doors for a few other things. First, no matter how narrowly the law itself is written, it opens the door for mothers to be held financially responsible for whatever happens to their unborn children. I can't imagine such a non-sequitur. The mother is going to be raising their child (unless they give the baby up for adoption) - they are already going to bear the price of anything they do while pregnant, and in ways that are far deeper than mere dollars.
The second problem I see is that this law, along with some other laws in Alberta, is that it provides the unborn child with a significant degree of legal status. It is this status that worries me far more than the basic law proposed itself. In doing this, the Alberta Government is going down the path that would allow the anti-abortion crowd to argue that a fetus is in legal fact a person. Effectively, that would open the door for a woman to be sued, or held criminally responsible for the death of her unborn child as a result of an abortion (naturally occurring, or by medical procedure).
The implications of laws like this are often subtle. The anti-abortion crowd has been angling for years for a law to be introduced that provides an implicit declaration of the unborn as legal entities which deserve protections under the law. In authoring this law, Mr. Stevens has no doubt created just such a situation. This opens up all sorts of implications for women's rights and health issues. In a sense, it once again revokes a woman's control over her body once she becomes pregnant. Parents already bear the full responsibility for their actions where their children are involved. It seems positively insane to me to introduce the adverserial legal system into what is already an emotional mess.
Whether this suggests that Alberta's legislature is riddled with theo-conservatives or not is a matter of some discussion. Superficially, one would say not; and yet the obvious implications of this law certainly play into classic theo-conservative thinking. If it were Ralph Klein proposing the legislation, I'd say that it was pure coincidence - Ralph's not capable of the subtlety required. Ron Stevens and other MLAs are a different issue altogether.
[Update 3/11/2005-18:00]: A commentator on CBC just spun another intriguing counter interpretation of this law that I think bears considering. It may also signal another attempt by the Klein government to further download long term health care costs. An intriguing prospect, and one that I hadn't thought of...
It seems that our Minister of Justice, Ron Stevens, wants to make it possible for children to sue their mothers if they are injured in automotive accidents while mom is pregnant.
Superficially, this almost seems reasonable in a tragic situation where a baby is born severely disabled as a result of an automobile accident. Right now, if the mother was the 'at fault' party in the accident, the unborn child cannot sue their parents for their negligence. Ostensibly, this law would open up the ability for the mother's insurance company to be held financially liable for the costs incurred as result of the child's disabilities.
I'm sympathetic, it's always tragic when a child is born with serious disabilities, all the more so when those disabilities are the result of an accident. The burden that families of disabled people bear are huge - both financially and emotionally.
However, this particular law raises other alarms for me. It opens doors for a few other things. First, no matter how narrowly the law itself is written, it opens the door for mothers to be held financially responsible for whatever happens to their unborn children. I can't imagine such a non-sequitur. The mother is going to be raising their child (unless they give the baby up for adoption) - they are already going to bear the price of anything they do while pregnant, and in ways that are far deeper than mere dollars.
The second problem I see is that this law, along with some other laws in Alberta, is that it provides the unborn child with a significant degree of legal status. It is this status that worries me far more than the basic law proposed itself. In doing this, the Alberta Government is going down the path that would allow the anti-abortion crowd to argue that a fetus is in legal fact a person. Effectively, that would open the door for a woman to be sued, or held criminally responsible for the death of her unborn child as a result of an abortion (naturally occurring, or by medical procedure).
The implications of laws like this are often subtle. The anti-abortion crowd has been angling for years for a law to be introduced that provides an implicit declaration of the unborn as legal entities which deserve protections under the law. In authoring this law, Mr. Stevens has no doubt created just such a situation. This opens up all sorts of implications for women's rights and health issues. In a sense, it once again revokes a woman's control over her body once she becomes pregnant. Parents already bear the full responsibility for their actions where their children are involved. It seems positively insane to me to introduce the adverserial legal system into what is already an emotional mess.
Whether this suggests that Alberta's legislature is riddled with theo-conservatives or not is a matter of some discussion. Superficially, one would say not; and yet the obvious implications of this law certainly play into classic theo-conservative thinking. If it were Ralph Klein proposing the legislation, I'd say that it was pure coincidence - Ralph's not capable of the subtlety required. Ron Stevens and other MLAs are a different issue altogether.
[Update 3/11/2005-18:00]: A commentator on CBC just spun another intriguing counter interpretation of this law that I think bears considering. It may also signal another attempt by the Klein government to further download long term health care costs. An intriguing prospect, and one that I hadn't thought of...
Chilling...positively Chilling
- and I'm not talking about the weather.
In the latest sordid tale to escape from the White House, it seems that the US is operating covert prisons abroad. Per se, this isn't really a big surprise. Once BushCo established their extraterritorial prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it became quite clear that any reasonable treatment of POW's arising from the "War on Terror" was going to be suspended until after BushCo leave office.
The allegation has been made that the CIA is using old Soviet-era compounds in central Europe. I don't suppose it is surprising that a regime that is showing even less regard for legitimate civil rights than its former rival is using facilities that its rival once constructed for that very purpose.
Meanwhile, the behaviour of the FBI in the US continues to reinforce the notion that this is not a "war on terrorism", but a war on Islam. When the headlines themselves are emphasizing the ethnic/religious origins of the persons arrested, that's a not-so-subtle clue as to just what is really going on.
In the latest sordid tale to escape from the White House, it seems that the US is operating covert prisons abroad. Per se, this isn't really a big surprise. Once BushCo established their extraterritorial prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it became quite clear that any reasonable treatment of POW's arising from the "War on Terror" was going to be suspended until after BushCo leave office.
The allegation has been made that the CIA is using old Soviet-era compounds in central Europe. I don't suppose it is surprising that a regime that is showing even less regard for legitimate civil rights than its former rival is using facilities that its rival once constructed for that very purpose.
Meanwhile, the behaviour of the FBI in the US continues to reinforce the notion that this is not a "war on terrorism", but a war on Islam. When the headlines themselves are emphasizing the ethnic/religious origins of the persons arrested, that's a not-so-subtle clue as to just what is really going on.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Ah, The Puritan Mind
Every so often, my random wanderings through the web lead down some rather odd little paths. This morning was one such day. I had started out thinking I was going to write a bit of an analysis of the Gomery Report this morning, but that got sidetracked by an article that another blog pointed me to.
Shakespeare's Sister had a rather interesting rant that pointed to this article in the New Yorker. It turns out that "Scooter Libby" is every bit as bent as those that his party brethren would condemn. (an interesting insight into the mind of Cheney's right-hand advisor)
One of the things that has always bothered me with "conservatives" (or at least the theo-con variety running around these days) is their predeliction for proscriptive legislation on topics of morality. Whether it is Bishop Henry on homosexuality (or sexuality in general), or the anti-abortion crowd, they all seem to have this idealized fantasy world where morality is uniform (and biblical) that they want to legislate into being.
Closer to home, conservatives in Canada have begun to express worry that cases like this could become topics of Charter challenge in light of the recent changes to our marriage laws to allow for same gender marriage.
The rationale goes like this: Since we have removed the concept of reproduction as a criteria for marriage, it is quite reasonable to assert that an incestuous relationship should be treated as a legal marriage.
The flaw in this line of reasoning is the black-and-white view they take of the picture. They miss the subtle notion that rights are legitimately bounded by the rights of others.
In this situation, we have a classic example of the issues that incestuous relationships bring to any offspring that may result.
The second point is that of individual equality. In broad terms incestuous relationships are inherently unequal. A marriage is a partnership between equals. Incest is typically - like rape - about power and control.
Regardless of the ability of the victim to consent, both of these seriously breach aspects of our charter and criminal laws. I simply cannot see any reasonable judge accepting the blind argument that ignores the harm to various parties.
I find it fascinating that on one hand, they worry incessantly that any change in social structures and rights could enable others, and yet, they can be the same people whose written works and deeds seem to include those that they are so dead set against.
Perhaps looking in the mirror is more discomforting for them than we might originally think. (A bit of "do as I say, not as I do"?)
Shakespeare's Sister had a rather interesting rant that pointed to this article in the New Yorker. It turns out that "Scooter Libby" is every bit as bent as those that his party brethren would condemn. (an interesting insight into the mind of Cheney's right-hand advisor)
One of the things that has always bothered me with "conservatives" (or at least the theo-con variety running around these days) is their predeliction for proscriptive legislation on topics of morality. Whether it is Bishop Henry on homosexuality (or sexuality in general), or the anti-abortion crowd, they all seem to have this idealized fantasy world where morality is uniform (and biblical) that they want to legislate into being.
Closer to home, conservatives in Canada have begun to express worry that cases like this could become topics of Charter challenge in light of the recent changes to our marriage laws to allow for same gender marriage.
The rationale goes like this: Since we have removed the concept of reproduction as a criteria for marriage, it is quite reasonable to assert that an incestuous relationship should be treated as a legal marriage.
The flaw in this line of reasoning is the black-and-white view they take of the picture. They miss the subtle notion that rights are legitimately bounded by the rights of others.
Their relationship only came to light after their third child, a 2-year-old girl, was rushed to hospital under suspicious circumstances in June 2001. The girl died from dehydration.
Her illness was later linked to an underlying medical condition -- common to children of incest -- called adrenal gland atrophy.
In this situation, we have a classic example of the issues that incestuous relationships bring to any offspring that may result.
The second point is that of individual equality. In broad terms incestuous relationships are inherently unequal. A marriage is a partnership between equals. Incest is typically - like rape - about power and control.
Regardless of the ability of the victim to consent, both of these seriously breach aspects of our charter and criminal laws. I simply cannot see any reasonable judge accepting the blind argument that ignores the harm to various parties.
I find it fascinating that on one hand, they worry incessantly that any change in social structures and rights could enable others, and yet, they can be the same people whose written works and deeds seem to include those that they are so dead set against.
Perhaps looking in the mirror is more discomforting for them than we might originally think. (A bit of "do as I say, not as I do"?)
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Post Gomery Report - Day 0
Volume 1 of the Gomery Report landed in the House of Commons today.
As much as the Gomery report is a damning condemnation of the Liberal Party of Canada (in Quebec at least), I don't think it will fatally injure the Liberals. More damaging is the renewed fighting between the Chretien and Martin factions of the party. This is probably far more damaging to the Liberals than any allegations of corruption.
If allegations of corruption were such a big deal, the Conservatives should have rocketed to an easy victory last election. That didn't happen, and the Conservatives have lurked in the basement of the polls in recent months.
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
Realistically, I don't think the Gomery Report really means all that much by itself. At this point, most voters are sick of hearing about it. Any damage that was going to be done has already been done. The parties are once again competing for access to the "undecided" vote.
In the department of "not getting the concept", both Harper and Duceppe are demanding an immediate election. NDP Leader Jack Layton continues to be the leading politician of the current parliament, craftily sidestepping the obvious calls for Martin to resign, and instead weighing what he can do to further his agenda.
Regardless of whether you agree with Layton's policies, you have to admire how effectively he has leveraged an underdog position in the house to make significant gains. (Much to the howls of indignation from the Conservative benches)
As much as the Gomery report is a damning condemnation of the Liberal Party of Canada (in Quebec at least), I don't think it will fatally injure the Liberals. More damaging is the renewed fighting between the Chretien and Martin factions of the party. This is probably far more damaging to the Liberals than any allegations of corruption.
If allegations of corruption were such a big deal, the Conservatives should have rocketed to an easy victory last election. That didn't happen, and the Conservatives have lurked in the basement of the polls in recent months.
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
Realistically, I don't think the Gomery Report really means all that much by itself. At this point, most voters are sick of hearing about it. Any damage that was going to be done has already been done. The parties are once again competing for access to the "undecided" vote.
In the department of "not getting the concept", both Harper and Duceppe are demanding an immediate election. NDP Leader Jack Layton continues to be the leading politician of the current parliament, craftily sidestepping the obvious calls for Martin to resign, and instead weighing what he can do to further his agenda.
Regardless of whether you agree with Layton's policies, you have to admire how effectively he has leveraged an underdog position in the house to make significant gains. (Much to the howls of indignation from the Conservative benches)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)