Okay, the cynic was wrong

The headline news blare out the word that Ralph Klein's mother has passed on. Fair enough - the cynic in me wondered if just maybe Ralph's handlers had gotten ahold of him and convinced him it was time to vanish from the election before his tongue does any more damage to the Conservative campaign. I was apparently mistaken.

We'll have to see if Ralph returns to the campaign trail or not before Nov. 22. (I don't think he'll return much before the end of this week)

Of course, sad as it is, the passing of Ralph's mother doesn't change anything about the PC's under Ralph. Even if Ralph is absent from the campaign trail, we need to take a long, hard look at his government's record, and decide whether they have done what we need them to.

How convenient, Ralph

Call me cynical if you wish, but I can't help but wonder if Ralph Klein's mother being ill hasn't something to do with the furore over his recent statements about AISH.

Yesterday, he made a somewhat half-baked apology (to be honest, I'm not even sure it got to "half baked"); and today his mother is suddenly so seriously ill that he has to take a "leave" from campaigning. Okay, it's quite possible that his mother is very ill - sickness, especially in old age, doesn't respect deadlines, campaign schedules or much else.

But given the kerfuffle over Ralph's latest attack of 'foot-in-mouth' disease (I wonder sometimes if it is the human equivalent of 'Hoof and Mouth' disease?), the "indefinite" withdrawal from the campaign seems like it might just be a convenient way for the PC's to keep Ralph from bungling anything else on the campaign trail.

Given how loose Ralph's tongue seems to be, one has to wonder if he's lost more than just his "moral compass". (Marbles, common sense, brains - whatever)

Personally, I find the half-baked apology a continuation of the stupidity that brought Ralph to say what he did in the first place. He's lost touch with more than just common sense - he seems to have also lost contact with the people that he's supposed to govern. He doesn't seem to know when he's made such a monumental error that admitting it would look better than these 'pseudo apologies'.

Ralph, you insulted a lot more than just the people who are on AISH. You insulted the intelligence and integrity of every Albertan that ever uses a government program. At this point, I'm not sure I'd be overly impressed by even the most abject of apologies.

I hope that others in this province are looking carefully at what you've said and done over the last decade. There's a pattern emerging, and it's not exactly flattering or pretty.

I can't believe it...

I wonder if it's possible to sue our politicians for medical damages that result from their colossal stupdity. This morning, I'm driving up to the University for a course, and the 6:30 news comes on.

The lead item on the news is more from King Ralph about AISH. I'm sure that my blood pressure went from a nice, normal 120/80 type of number to 220/??? in 10 seconds or less - that can't be good.

Says Ralph to his audience in Grande Prairie:

"I'm sure none of you want to talk to me about AISH, do you? No, because you're normal," Klein then told the crowd. "Severely normal people."

I'm past being just a tad angry with Ralph - now I'm just furious. The arrogance and insensitivity of this buffoon are insulting to my intelligence as a thinking human being.

He then turns around with reporters after his Grande Prairie speech and says "he's had enough of the issue":

Afterwards, he said he's had enough of the issue. "I'm not about to subject myself to providing 15-second sound bites," Klein said.

This voter has had enough of the issue too - enough to know that there is no way short of coercion that I will vote Tory this provincial election.

There are two key reasons for this in my mind:

1. Ralph has made a colossal blunder that is both mean-spirited and reprehensible.

2. Ralph has once again proven that he has no desire whatsoever to deal with his own mistakes. Storming off when you are confronted with something like this is ridiculous and insulting to the public.

It's time to fire Ralph!

Reasons Ralph _MUST_ Go

I must be getting cranky in my old age or something. It seems that there is less and less in the current crop of politicians that makes me want to keep any of them in power.

This morning, I listened to the news only to hear with absolute horror the comments of Premier Klein about the AISH program.

Says Ralph:

"And they were yipping about AISH payments," Klein said, adding the women were receiving the assistance. "They didn't look severely handicapped to me. I'll tell you that for sure. Both had cigarettes dangling from their mouths, and cowboy hats."

So, infers Ralph:

"We will look at potential and absolute abuse of the system and cut those people off," Klein said.

Now, don't get me wrong, fraud is fraud - wrong no matter how you look at it. If there is in fact fraudulent abuse of the AISH program, let's clamp down on it.

Having said that, Ralph doesn't know what reason these two women were on AISH - the reasons could be invisible injuries, or psychiatric issues that render them unable to work. (I really don't know, nor is that relevant). Unless Ralph's been going to Medical School in his spare time, I don't imagine he's qualified to determine if these women were handicapped or not.

What really bothers me about this is the change in Ralph Klein that these statements reflect. Long gone is the "Bumbling Ralph" that used to be Calgary's mayor - a man whose missteps could often be laughed off. What has replaced him is "Dark Ralph" who has become a nasty piece of work.

Why do I say nasty? Consider the leap of logic he's made - because these two women were apparently "able-bodied", they must be able to work. Therefore, in Ralph's world, they shouldn't be on AISH. Remember, this is the same brain surgeon that has restructured health care so that physical therapy is purely user pay, yet needed vitally for many injuries after medical intervention. For that matter, under his watch, classes for special needs students were merged with regular classrooms and then the assistants that help the special needs students were cut out.

Does anybody else see a pattern? Here's a man, under whose governance, anyone who is not "able bodied, healthy and self sustaining" has no place in his idea of society. What's next? We start deciding whether a patient should be treated based on their anticipated future economic contribution to society? (I certainly hope not!)

So...yet another election

Given that this is the third election in this year, and the fourth that I feel it necessary to keep track of, I'm not all sure that I'm overly happy with Ralph Klein's decision to call an election for November 22.

Looking back over the last 3 1/2 years (it hasn't quite been four yet...), I find myself wondering if the voters have really kept track of Ralph and his merry band of bandits.

On the plus side, Alberta's economy is rolling in cash - with world oil prices well into the mid-$50 /bbl range, and a general upswing overall, we are making a huge amount of money on oil royalties - even though Alberta's royalty rate is quite a bit lower than Alaska's. I would assert that a chimpanzee could balance a provincial budget with the raw revenues coming in the door.

The question before Albertans now is who is best qualified to manage this province into the future. I think it's time to look back over the record of Ralph Klein and his people and ask ourselves just "how well" they've really done.

Yes, the budget is balanced, our long term financial debt is mostly retired. The books look pretty good - or do they? What about the people side of the equations - I can't be described in "dollars and cents" - I'm a human being dammit!

Consider:

• $400, 000, 000.00 vanished into the pockets of American-owned meat packing companies during the BSE crisis.
• $400,000 went to Gary Mar's former "executive assistant" for "consulting" activities that have never been quantified.
• The province is spending like a drunken sailor on roadways and other infrastructure. (Take a look at the south end of Deerfoot Trail in Calgary) Wonderful - but do I need to point out that this same bunch of politicians has spent the last decade and change pleading poverty on infrastructure, and letting what we had crumble?
• Property taxes are up, the province controls the purse strings, but insists that individual school boards make contract arrangements with the teachers. (When arbitration hands out raises the government doesn't like, they just refuse to pay the school boards the needed funds???)
• Health Care is in crisis - a manufactured crisis I might add. One which this government has been in a position to mitigate for most of the last ten years, and has deliberately ignored the needs of Albertans - apparently in the interests of creating conditions to allow various "commercial health care providers" to enter the market.
• Ralph likes to complain about the billions Alberta contributes in equalization payments. Alberta wasn't always a "have" province. There have been many times in our past where we have been a "have-not". The equalization payments are part of how Canada tries to spread the wealth. Remember, we are part of a larger country. It's time for our leadership to rise above the "us-them" attitude of the 1970s.
  

• This is the same government that has established "trade offices" in Washington, Beijing and other locations around the globe. At our expense as taxpayers, I might add:

1. Asia
2. Europe
3. North America

Is this good management, or is it a province sticking its oar into the foreign affairs game when the Federal Government is responsible for it?

So far, this is government record that smacks of arrogance and self-interest, not good management.

On top of all that, we have a premier whose behaviour is embaressing at best, worse than childish much of the time.

On the Federal stage, Ralph Klein is the "senior leader" among the premiers, yet instead of building consensus, and trying to build bridges across this country, he continues to behave as though Pierre Trudeau were still in power in Ottawa. (Sorry, Ralph, but you're not Peter Lougheed, and Paul Martin isn't Trudeau's man either)

I'm disgusted with Ralph's refusal to be a player in the Federal discussions over health care - instead of showing up for the negotiations, he left Gary Mar there to carry the ball, and went gallavanting off to engage in a little pre-election campaigning instead.

Last fall, he conveniently absented himself from the legislature - why because he didn't want to answer a bunch of "stupid, probing questions" that the opposition might ask. This year, to avoid a fall sitting of the legislature, he calls an election?

When his office's expenses are questioned by a public committee, Ralph engages in a bullying 'shout-down' of the questioner. Not only was that horribly inappropriate, it was rude and demeaning to the MLA asking the questions. The Public Accounts Committee is just that - they are public, and they should be open. Ralph's reaction tells me that a serious audit of his government's books would be an interesting exploration.

Really - is this the mark of a man that we can entrust the future management of this province to?

You may ask yourself "who else is ready to do the job"? My reply is that it doesn't matter - Ralph isn't ready to do it, and he's been in power long enough to prove the point.

The Rise of Politics in Religious Fundamentalism

In the past few years, there has been a steady rise in the visibility of religious fundamentalists, especially in the realm of politics.

In the United States, we have seen people like Pat Robertson and other "Christian Evangelists" taking runs at the Presidency, largely on the strength of their public name as religious leaders. The current president, G. W. Bush is himself a self-avowed "born-again" Christian.

We are seeing political lobby organization emerge in both Canada and the United States that are clearly rooted in the so-called "Christian Right Wing" (e.g. "Focus on Family", or "Concerned Christians Canada"; in Ontario, there are experiments with allowing Muslims to apply "Sharia Law" in the civil legal system; in various countries in the Middle East and North Africa, we see "Islamic Fundamentalist" governments holding power.

Per se, none of these things particularly bother me, until I encounter the rigid, immovable belief structures that seem to evolve around religions. It is always easier for someone to be "conservative" about something than it is to accept or embrace change. Like it or lump it, that's just the reality of belief systems. So, when the Anglican church brings down a report that is essentially a "verbal spanking" to a Canadian congregation that blessed a 'same-sex union', and the US Episcopalian church for affirming a gay Bishop, it really comes as no real surprise to me.

As I expected, phrases like "incompatible with scripture" and other lofty self-justifications are used. Perhaps it is the "incompatible with scripture" argument that I find most intriguing here. Superficially, it's almost innocuous; but when you dig a bit deeper, I believe it becomes more significant, for just about every "moral" argument that is based on religious belief seems to boil down to this eventually. Whether the issue is abortion, gay marriage, creation versus evolution or even plain gender equality, the religious opposition seems to become remarkably shrill and strident in their condemnation.

It is easy to be dismissive and simply claim that the religious argument is irrelevant and largely hysterical when put in the face of "rational fact". However, that is not the underlying point at all. In fact, I don't want to "dismiss" those arguments, but rather probe the roots of their origins and the shrillness with which their advocates put them forward.

If we look around the world we live in, it becomes pretty clear that a great deal has changed in the last 2500 years or more - empires have risen and fallen; entire nations have emerged and vanished; species found and lost; languages have changed; society has changed most of all.

In the case of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, all three religions base their core beliefs on scripture that was penned somewhere between 1500 and 4000 years in the past. (Depending on which set of rubber rulers you use to measure the age of the origianl sources) The most diehard advocates of these religions argue that their scriptures are at least divinely inspired, or possibly that God directly told the authors what to write. Since I have no rational means to demonstrate the validity of this, I am going to assume that at some level, human intellect and will came into play in the authoring of the various books of scripture.

Chances are very good that in writing scripture, very real and human frailties influenced its precise wording. Just as I believe that I live in the best possible society the world has ever seen, so would have the original authors of that scripture have thought of themselves. Therefore, the odds are that they would have recorded values and assumptions relevant to their time and place.

Here we are several millenia later, living in a world where the amount of knowledge and understanding we have about the variety and richness of human experience has changed dramatically. 2000 years ago, we could set bones, and suture wounds - but could we treat cancers? No. That far back, we were still engaging in public animal sacrifices - today such practices are nearly unheard of outside of a few odd pockets of religious practice. Where most "western" societies have long ago adopted the notion of gender equality, the scriptures almost exclusively speak of the woman as if she is subservient to the male.

So - what do we have happening? Society has changed, but scripture hasn't. Worse, those charged with interpreting scripture - the clergy - have failed on the whole to interpret scripture effectively in the light of new knowledge and understanding. I would suggest that in fact the scriptural basis of all three major "monotheistic" religions is in fact encountering very fundamental limitations. Simply put, the cumulative effect of societal change over the last two thousand years alone has rendered it nearly impossible to interpret scripture effectively when confronted with new moral and ethical issues.

For example, consider the notion of stem cell research. Here is a realm of biological research that is rooted in some very exotic, and difficult to understand biology. The fact that it requires 'pre-differentiated' that has to be grown in a petri dish makes it very ethically and morally sensitive. Some argue that as soon as sperm and egg meet, life begins; others view the 'pre-differentiated' blob of cellular matter to be simply a collection of cells. Scripture talks about life, but it does not talk about when life begins, or when you can consider it viable (much less human). Simply put, the line here is so fine, and so indistinct, that there is no chance that anyone 2000+ years ago could possibly have anticipated it and written clearly about it. In fact, I find it hard enough to predict what I'm going to have for dinner tonight, let alone what the world will look like in 2000 years.

For all that it is deeply troubling, especially to the practitioners of these religions, we may well be looking at a period where the major religions in the world begin to wane. Just as the weight of time eventually rendered the "Greco-Roman" pantheon of gods irrelevant, we may be seeing the rise of an era where the singular, inflexible god of monotheistic religions becomes irrelevant. The shrillness with which the 'fundamentalists' oppose various topics may well be simply a symptom of an underlying ailment for these religions. Time and inflexibility have rendered them unable to adapt to the world in which they exist - as with all such things, eventually they die out. (Not always quietly)

I don't believe that any religion is going to vanish overnight, but historians in another millenia may look back at the 'fundamentalist' movements of today and come to see them as the harbingers of the decline of monotheism.

History Repeats Itself

Once again, in Iraq, we are witness to history repeating itself. Just as the Soviet Union failed miserably to control Afghanistan with overpowering brute force, the United States appears to be taking the same approach with the "insurgents" in Iraq.

This past week, the US and its allies have been bombing Fallujah back into the stone age (or before?). Why? For no other reason than the fact that Fallujah happens to be an area where the various 'insurgent/rebel/terrorist/freedom fighter' groups have become relatively entrenched.

This article from BBC today has a few rather interesting quotes:

The people believe they are being targeted because they inflicted heavy casualties on US forces during the siege earlier this year.

They say the Americans are attacking them because of wounded pride. They say they are motivated by revenge.

This is very important, for underlying it is the reality of the Middle Eastern cultures. If you kill someone, you become the sworn enemy of their relatives. Bombs a pretty indiscriminant killers - they kill people, and don't ask about their activities. So, for every insurgent a bomb takes out, it probably kills a half dozen others. Each of whom leaves behind family...

They say Mr Allawi may be a Shia, but this is not why he is at war with Falluja.

They think he simply gives the order to batter Falluja because this is what the Americans want.

This is the second part of things. The American troops are not being seen here as the "peace bringers" or "liberators" at all, but instead appear to be seen as the controllers, and manipulators. Not a good image to have at all.

Unless the American forces (and their allies) can change their image on the ground from being the 'strong arm' people that are manipulating Iraq, they will continue to create more tacit support for the resistance than anything else. In WW II, the German Nazi occupation forces made this mistake, and by doing so gave the peoples of the occupied nations every reason to conspire against their occupiers; similarly, the Soviet Union made the same mistakes in Afghanistan.

Unless there is a dramatic change in both policy and approach towards Iraq, the American forces there are going to find it increasingly difficult to control the situation. They may succeed to a degree by using brute force, but the unique history of occupation in the Middle East suggests that the ultimate result will be failure.