Take That!

-----------------------------------------
Advice for helping elect next premier is arrogant, undemocratic

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006

I am astonished at the arrogance displayed by many Alberta Tories, including Gary McPherson ("You don't have to be a lifelong Tory to have a say in choosing next premier," Letters, July 24), in suggesting that non-PC Party members should take out party memberships in order to vote for the next premier.

Isn't that what general elections are for?

Only in the elected dictatorship that is Alberta would anyone suggest that the only influence voters have is through the internal leadership process.

McPherson baldly asserts that the PC leadership is the only opportunity voters will get to have their say -- what a shocking indictment of the political system in this province!

I should also point out that the Alberta NDP, in its constitution, requires members to sign an undertaking that they are not "members or supporters of any other political party." This means that New Democrats could not keep their NDP memberships if they were to sign PC cards. I expect that many other political parties have similar provisions (indeed, I would not want to be a member of a party that did not).

Jerry Macdonald, Grande Prairie
© The Edmonton Journal 2006


-----------------------------------------


This is democracy?

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006

When reading Gary McPherson's letter, it began to sound to me like propaganda for the PC party to take over Alberta democracy.

The most outrageous statement is that, as an Albertan, I have a "duty" to join the PCs and vote for who would become Alberta's next premier. I'm sorry, McPherson. I have the right to choose to join your little party, but I have no duty to do so.

But even more interesting is that McPherson implies the election of the next PC leader is an opportunity to participate in this "most democratic process that is being made available to (Albertans)." So the internal workings of the PC party are more democratic than the actual election of our legislature? Is this what he could possibly mean?

If so, one would think the PCs would be all about democratic reform so that the election of our representatives, and not the election of one party leader, is the most democratic.

I'm keeping my $5 and will make my way to my local polling booth in the next provincial election.

Colin Robertson, Edmonton
© The Edmonton Journal 2006


-----------------------------------------


Paying to vote is wrong

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006

With all due respect to Gary McPherson, I must take objection to classifying the upcoming Progressive Conservative leadership race as a democratic process.

Albertans have a right to determine who will govern their province. Not a privilege -- a right.

Can you imagine if you had to pay $5 every time you exercised your right to freedom of religion or freedom of expression? Being asked to pay a fee before being able to exercise my democratic right to vote is just as ludicrous.

Additionally, when you buy a membership to a political party, you are implicitly supporting that party and their values.

Albertans of various political leanings shouldn't have to sacrifice their ideals in order to help decide who should serve as the next leader of this province.

Furthermore, membership sales provide a financial benefit to the party. Try multiplying $5 by 80,000 (approximately the number of votes cast in the last leadership race). That's money which could have an impact on the outcome of the next provincial election.

When citizens are charged a fee before being allowed to vote for an individual to lead their province, then we need to make serious corrections to our "democratic" system.

Chris Samuel, Edmonton
© The Edmonton Journal 2006


-----------------------------------------


PCs arrogant

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Thursday, July 27, 2006

I am insulted by Gary McPherson's letter ("You don't have to be a lifelong Tory to have a say in choosing next premier," July 24).

McPherson's suggestion that the Alberta PC leadership race is just as important as an actual democratic election highlights the arrogance of the current governing party.

I, for one, am going to keep my $5 and wait for the next election to vote for my choice.

David Cournoyer, Edmonton
© The Edmonton Journal 2006

-----------------------------------------

I was going to rant about that anyway (pay to pick the premier? Seriously. I don't care if it's true, no one should be dumb enough to say it. Especially not in a newspaper that I read while drinking) but this worked so much better. I don't even have to be articulate and passionate. The point is made, and now I can skip straight to the inane punch line.

My contribution then, to the dear Mr. McPherson, silly Conservative kanigget esquire:
*ahem*



Now Go Away, or Whe Shall Taunt You a Fifth Time!

Enthralled Half a World Away

I, like nearly everyone else I know who keeps an active blog, am currently captivated by events unfolding in the Middle East.

In particular, the Gauntlet and this group of Lebanese bloggers are interesting reads.

However, I'm having a difficult time with the fact that I don't have to write a paper on it (and a tiny, crass little voice in the back of my head is in a rage over the fact that this little cataclysm is going to trigger a rush of new text book editions in my chosen field). To escape dealing with this horrifically insulated view of things, I have decided to list the different encounters I have had lately with how many different ways the world is going straight to hell (in some sort of basket, I assume). This activity, shamelessly devoid of analysis, will allow me to feel bizarrely good about myself by reaffirming that I am at least cognizant of the fact that we're screwed.

Zimbabwe
An Inconvenient Truth - the film was unsettling too, by the way. Go see it, and fund Al Gore's next election run.
WarBlog I really can't think of anything glib to say about this one. It cuts fairly deep.
Nick Lachey Phew. Saved the mood a bit.

I had to stick the Nick Lachey thing in there, because otherwise I might be tempted to analyze. The warblog portion of Station R is a deeply personal and disturbing view of American politics, which is quite possibly the most disturbing phenomenon occupying the face of the earth right now, particularly if you find a way to judge its actual impact when multiplied by a factor of media coverage and/or long range missile capability.

The most telling thing of all? Despite everything, the one that bothers me most is also the one that gives me my 'moment of Zen' (props to The Daily Show for giving me something apt to plagarize):



"Does he mean it? Maybe he does... Oh my God, we're all wrong!"

Khraa...

This can't be good.

For those of you who don't follow things so close to the cradle of civilization, here's the scoop.


1) Palestinians captured an Israeli soldier on June 25th and are (still) holding him, demanding that the Israelis release a number of Arab prisoners (political and otherwise).
2) Israel retaliates by bombing the hell out of Gaza Strip, including a couple of pot-shots (with missiles) at the Palestinian PM's house & office.
3) Hezbollah, the "Party of God" launches a surprise attack on Israel on July 13th from their stronghold in south Lebanon, killing a few Israeli soldiers and capturing two. They claim the raid was long planned. Israel's not buying it, and they've blamed the Lebanese government, since Hezbollah is a recognized political party therein. Hezbollah, in turn is also demanding the release of prisoners (it worked last time with a little bit of patience and some killin'). The Lebanese government, on the other hand, is in a series of emergency cabinet meetings and a very public show of innocent ignorance.
4) Nonplussed, Israel has bombs the international airport in Beirut. Twice.
50 Hezbollah fires missiles. Civilian and military casualities mount, etc., etc.

I repeat: this can't be good. It never ends well when these two amigos start kicking sand at each other in the sandbox. Their friends always come over and someone breaks the stereo... and with the Americans chilling nearby and Iran already on edge, this could be even messier than usual. Someone might get grounded. Then again, all things considered, everyone other than Iraq is in a remarkably deja-vu-esque position compared to good ol' 1982.

Damn you Feminism! Cease and Desist with you Inculcating Ways!

The Boring Context

I just finished reading Race Against Time, Stephen Lewis's book on the Massey Lecture series he delivered a little while back. It's a really thought-provoking book, especially if yo keep in mind that it's essentially a speech transcript. I recommend it.

Anyway, the reason I tell you this is that one of the lectures delivered is on the subject of women, both in multilateral (democratic) bureaucracies and in the developing world. Something I was reading today reminded me. More on that later.


The Quote

The entire set of lectures was well done and there were a number of moments in the lecture on women that were stirring, moving, and enraging, but here's the one that caught my attention best (probably for professional reasons):

Despite all the lip service paid by the UN member states to the importance of gender equality, only 11 of the 191 ambassadors, or 5.7 percent, are women. Worse still, the make-up of the workforce of the UN agencies - a balance over which the powers-that-be within the secretariat have some control - is similarly distorted. The funds, programs and agencies will tell you, proudly, that up to 33 percent of their professional staff are women, but quite aside from asking why it should be only 33 percent (it's both embarrassing and indefensible, the way in which we've consigned 50 percent to some unattainable fantasy) a closer scrutiny will show that the concentration of women is invariably at the lower professional grades... at this moment of writing, men head the UN Development Programme, the World Health Organization, UNESCO, the World Food Programme, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, the High Commission for Refugees, the International Labour Organization, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the World Bank, the IMF, UNAIDS and the UN Environment Programme.
Women head UNICEF, the UNFPA, the High Commission for Human Rights, and UN-Habitat.

(I'm not linking to each one of those. Try the UN home page if you're interested.)

The passage goes on to discuss the absence of a major agency that represents women in the highest echelons of the UN bureaucracy.

The Lynchpin
I finished this book over the weekend, and when I came into work to check my email, the headline of my UN Wire newletter is as follows:

UN Wire: UNFPA targets fistula; UN agency for women?; MDGs'challenges

Neverminding what fistula is, I was intrigued. So, I continued to read.
I found an article on a convention in Geneva this week to which Stephen Lewis is headed to plead his case for the creation of a powerful agency devoted to the needs of women on an international scale. Still intrigued, I kept reading.

Guess, just guess who wrote this article?
That's right; the dear Toronto Star.

...

The statistics were impressive, I s'pose.


Somewhat Related Words of Wisdom for the Day

Nothing worthwhile comes easily. Work, continuous work and hard work, is the only way to accomplish results that last.

-Hamilton Holt

Best of luck to us.