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.

I've Heard This Before

[Update 13:00 13/10/07]
Allison's post at The Galloping Beaver underlines how Harper has carefully selected people who are sympathetic to his hard-line views.
[/Update]
Somewhere in my past life, I've heard this story before...where was it? Oh yes, wasn't MP Wajid Khan supposed to be "party neutral" in his report on the Middle East affairs portfolio? Yes, yes he was - then his whole project got black-holed when it started to show things that Harper didn't want to deal with.

So, do I expect anything genuinely useful to come out of Harper's "non-partisan" panel to review Afghanistan? Frankly, no. I suspect the reality is that it will quietly fizzle into the background after the throne speech - only to be dragged out when Harper needs to defend his otherwise polarizing partisanship in the House of Commons.

While I have some nominal respect for the various members of that panel, I simply don't believe that they are going to get to say anything honestly once the PMO gets involved. Whatever comes out will be spin-cycled until it's unrecognizable - especially if it doesn't fit into Harper's idea of what should happen in Afghanistan.

The Stupidity ... It Burns

I seldom comment on what others write on their blogs, but sometimes an author writes something so monumentally illogical that it's worth slapping about.

Today's illogic du jour comes from Shock and Blog.

Apparently, recent work which has found a functional purpose for the human appendix somehow "blows a hole" in the theory of evolution. Or, so "Jason" thinks.

Sadly, he's horrendously mistaken. The claim rests upon the notion that the purpose of the appendix has remained constant over time - hardly something that we can claim is guaranteed.

While we certainly do not need the ability to deal with large amounts of cellulose as our ancestors did, and human beings clearly can live quite well without their appendixes, it does not mean that the appendix is entirely without purpose (even if that purpose was misunderstood previously.

The notion of body parts having "fixed" and immutable uses is demonstrably false when you consider something as simple as bacterial flagellae:

For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.[11] This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.[12

If you want a more specific discussion, this article was pretty clear about pointing out why the idea of static purpose really doesn't hold together so well.

The observation that the appendix now serves as a "refuge" for certain kinds of bacteria that live in our intestines is hardly surprising, nor does it substantively affect the validity of evolution as a scientific theory.

Even more depressing for hard-line creationists is the cold reality that the notion of an organ being "vestigial" ultimately means that the original purpose of the structure is no longer significant. There is nothing to say that the structure no longer has a use in the body. In fact, the observations suggest an intriguing degree of adaptation in the relationship between the body and some of the microorganisms that live within.

This and That

It's Friday, and I don't feel like writing any in depth analysis so this is mostly a bunch of linkage:

First out of the gate, we have Al Gore winning a Nobel Peace Prize. I'm sure that this will get the howling shriek monkeys of the right wing going shortly.

Next, we have some initial commentary on how the Ontario Election is likely to affect the Federal Con$ - specifically by leaving them with a fatigued volunteer campaign apparatus in the very province where Harper needs to make serious traction to achieve a majority.

And Harper is allegedly playing partisan games with the throne speech - trying to forestall an election, no doubt. It's rather pathetic that Harper is going to play the "but the Liberals did nothing about Kyoto" card, when all he's done himself is put forth "do nothing until 2050" solutions (and a blowhard for a minister - after the oh-so-charismatic Rona Ambrose completely pooched the portfolio)

While predicting the future is a bit of a mug's game, it feels a lot like it's time to call Harper's bluff and collapse this parliament. The next election would likely result in another minority - perhaps we'd get something more constructive than the schoolyard bully in the PMO.

Thoughts on the Alnoor Kassam Campaign

It's easy to say "I won't vote for this candidate" - in fact I think most voters do that on an almost instinctive basis. It's a bit more difficult to articulate why you make such a decision.

Looking around at the various candidates for Mayor, we have two that seem to be plausible contenders - Dave Bronconnier and Alnoor Kassam.

Bronconnier (aka "Bronco") is a polarizing man - you either love him or you hate him. (I'm a little odd about it - I'm rather indifferent to the man). He's either the mayor that stood up to Edmonton and won the confrontation, or he's the weaselly guy with a one track mind about roads.

Before this election, I had only heard of Alnoor Kassam a handful of times, and besides a rather greedy decision to raise rents on an apartment building he owns by a multiple of 4, he's been a cipher to me.

But something about the man makes me feel uneasy. I can't put a finger on it - he presents well in public, and is generally a good speaker. So, why don't I trust him?

It's a combination of factors when it comes down to it.

First, although Alnoor claims that he was "cleared" of wrongdoing by Canadian immigration with respect to his involvement in the collapse of Kenya's Trade Bank, there's a world of difference between the kind of investigation that immigration is going to do and what charges someone may face in another country. Yes, I realize that Kenya's legal system is somewhat checkered, but the fact remains that Alnoor Kassam faces legal sanction should he ever choose to return to Kenya.

There's a much longer history to Kassam, who fled Kenya in 1993 with the law at his heels for his involvement in the country's greatest banking scandal.

He was a principal of Trade Bank, as well as Diner's Club. A huge inquiry over government subsidy of exports focused on the fate of the bank.

Kenyan officials have said he's welcome to return, as long as he coughs up $23 million Cdn he's alleged to have taken with him.

Kassam insists he didn't take a penny, noting that a Canadian immigration tribunal ruled in his favour.

Whether bribery and corruption are "part of the political culture" in Kenya is quite irrelevant to me as a Canadian voter. The impression I have is that Kassam "skipped town one step ahead of the law" - a worrisome and disturbing shadow cast over someone who wishes to lead a city the size and complexity of Calgary.

The second point is one of wondering about his motives. He is allegedly matching Bronconnier dollar for dollar on campaign spending - a number rumored to be in the vicinity of a million dollars or so. Considering the $160,000 annual salary that Calgary's mayor receives in remuneration, there's a few prickly questions that we have ask. While Bronconnier has had the last three years to fund raise for this campaign, Kassam can't - and doesn't - make the same claim - instead he is taking the money out of his own pocket. Fair enough, but what businessman spends $1,000,000 to recoup $480,000 over the course of the next 3 years? Even with my limited experience with high finance, that seems like a pretty odd investment. So, what is he seeking to gain? {especially in light of the unresolved questions surrounding the collapse of his ventures in Kenya, and some of the activities he freely admits to, one has to ask such a question}

The last point that makes me wonder about this candidate is the fact that he is seeking to lead this city after moving here relatively recently. His own bio shows that he has seldom stayed in any one place for very long - and has just moved to Calgary in the last four or five years. I hate to sound like a regionalist, but I have a hard time believing that he "gets Calgary" just yet. He may like the city, but does he really understand it and the complexities of it?

Like the guy who sold me my first house, Alnoor feels a little like he's out for his own interests - and is not above taking advantage of someone else to achieve his goals - whatever they may be.

Harper The Anti-Democrat

I find it amusing (in the blackened comedy sense) that the leader of a party that is supposedly a "grass-roots" organization is showing himself to be more and more of a control freak.

His latest move to muzzle the opposition response to his throne speech on Oct 16 only reinforces my opinion that Harper is no democrat - not in any sense of the word.

I'm sure his supporters are all sitting around clapping at this "masterful stroke" of political tactics. But Canadians have seen this before. Not on the federal stage to be sure, but we've seen it before.

Moves like this are old school for Albertans - at least those of us who actually paid attention during the Klein years. Under Klein, the Alberta Government became (and remains) the most secretive, uncooperative government in the country. Klein would go out of his way to stage as much as he could outside the legislative session, and to minimize the ability of the opposition to respond and hold him (and his government) accountable.

Harper's latest move smacks of the vicious partisan politics that he has fostered since he became leader of the Canadian Alliance (taking pages out of the US Rethuglicans), and draws heavily on the tactics of control and muzzling that Ralph Klein used with success in Alberta.

Alberta's legislature is a shadow of what it has been in the past under leaders who understood that their job was to lead and represent the people, Harper is doing his best to imitate that on the Federal scene.

Canadians should be worried - very worried, indeed.

Ontario Votes ... and Tory Loses...

Ontario's Dalton McGuinty won a second majority tonight, albeit a somewhat reduced one.

This is interesting - not at the provincial level - in fact the results are almost a yawn really, but at the federal level. It has been rumored for some time that one of the reasons that Harper delayed restarting parliament was to enable his Ontario MPs to support John Tory's campaign.

Tory's campaign pretty much fell apart once he opened the can of worms around direct provincial funding of religious schools beyond the existing parallel Catholic system.

What's interesting is that disaffected voters did not "automatically" choose McGuinty's party as the natural alternative - instead, they seem to have gone to either the NDP or the Green party. Assuming that this is even mildly reflective of Ontario's political mood, it's not good news for either Harper or Dion. (although Elizabeth May might just have reason to smile a bit more tonight)

First, it suggests that Harper is vulnerable in Ontario - especially to the message that he is tied to the religious hard-line crowd in Canada. For Dion, it means that he's going to have a hard time getting traction in that all-important province.

Layton might not lose as much as I had expected federally in the next election - unless his ridings get sufficiently annoyed with the Con$ervatives and their policies, and Layton's seemingly inconsistent performance where he seems to change his allegiances and philosophy from moment to moment depending on where he thinks he can "score a few points".

Ontario is up for grabs federally - and it's up to the individual parties and their leadership to figure out what it is that Ontarians are watching for in their next government. I don't think it's going to be "easy" for any of the parties to win in that province.

In truth, this is actually good news for Canada's political landscape - it tells us that Ontarians haven't swung their vote strongly along ideological lines to align with whatever's the fashion in Ottawa, and when the next Federal election is finally called, I think we can look forward to a very interesting campaign in that province. (Alberta remains a federal write-off province. Until we send something other than a Con$ervative to Ottawa, this part of Canada remains an "assumed constant")