A Watershed in BC Conservative Politics?

Watching the HST petition reach a climax with more than 10% of the required signatures in all 85 provincial ridings, with former Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm at the forefront, I can’t help but wonder if this is not a watershed moment in conservative politics in BC.

British Columbia has long been without a viable conservative option at the polls.  In the last 12 years I have watched a variety of flavours attempt to rise from the ashes of the Social Credit Party (which was really more populist and centrist than conservative during most of its tenure) only to wither after electing a handful of seats.  It is hard to pinpoint the reason why this province can vote conservatively in most federal elections but cannot elect conservatives to their legislature.  Some may say bad organization, others may point to a media so left-biased that conservatives can’t even get negative press – they are simply ignored.  (I’d speculate that they get elected federally because the press is national, and less leftist than the local varieties, so the word gets out.)  Whatever the reason, conservative voices have been marginalized in BC for a long time.

Bill Vander Zalm was perhaps one of the more conservative Social Credit Premiers.  He was ousted in 1991, so it’s been a good 19 years of swings between more left (NDP) and less left (Liberal) reigns.  Admittedly, Vander Zalm’s agitation for the rejection of the HST is not really a classically conservative move – more populist really.  However, the last big move of conservative voices in the West was the rise of the Reform Party, which began with a very populist focus.

I see certain similarities between the mood of conservativism at the foundation of the Federal Reform Party and the present situation in BC.  If they can organize behind populist messages and get past the press hurdle and into the mainstream political conversation in BC, we might be seeing a watershed in the politics of the left coast.

Public Service vs Big Brother: Feds looking at fighting online misinformation…online.

From the CTV News story here.

So a story was released on Sunday regarding online facts vs ‘misinformation’. Apparently the Federal Government is looking at means to fight misinformation (and sometimes outright lies) in online forums such as Facebook Groups and Comment Sections:

The government is looking for ways to monitor online chatter about political issues and correct what it perceives as misinformation….

…The seal hunt pilot project was set up in part “to establish foundations and recommendations for future programs and campaigns to use social media as another way to listen to, inform and engage with Canadians”

Right off the top, those of us experienced in Blogging and Commenting online about various issues know that there are those out there who will immediately assume that this will be nothing more than a propaganda machine for the government in power. Having read through the comments of the story, I’m sorry to say that I wasn’t disappointed in my expectation.

Now in all fairness, this could very well be true. The potential for abuse and propaganda peddling is self-evident. However, I believe that those who will be most threatened by this, are those who intentionally misrepresent information, stories and facts in order to further their own personal agenda. I also believe that those who shout loudest about Big Brother et al. are those who have the most to lose if a Federal Representative were to intrude upon their rant with actual facts (and in this statement, I’m assuming that only facts are what will be posted). Such comments/replies will of course become subject to ridicule and further attack.

On the bright side, this is also a government who is recognizing that as more and more Canadians resort to online forums of all sorts to obtain their information, they too will have to go where the people are. Provided that it’s “just the facts ma’am“, and rhetoric and propaganda are left at the door so-to-speak, then I believe that this is truly a responsible proposal.

With Governments falling victim to shoddy “Gotcha!” reporting tactics where the Headline and By-line are far more important than the actual facts and issues at hand (not to mention the importance or lack thereof), misinformation is spreading like wildfire among the populace. The natural reaction of any responsible government would be to take advantage of any means by which to provide factual information wherever possible.

As someone who is more interested in facts and truth, I wouldn’t mind in the least if a member of the Federal Government were to show up and post corrections on something I had written online. If I disagreed, I would be able to challenge them directly, visibly, for all to see, and then be proven right or wrong. Again: Publicly. Visibly. I have no issues with this, and in fact, encourage it.

So the Pros and Cons? On the pro side, it engages people with their government, and facts can be set straight. A laudable and credible endeavour. It may also create a pressure for commentators and authors to clearly state that this is ‘their opinion‘ and that it ‘should not be taken as fact.’ On the con side, if abused, it will only serve to forever widen the gap between the Government and Public Trust. The danger of this can not be over-emphasized, and should the Federal Government embark on this initiative on a larger scale, they absolutely must do so responsibly with an eye to the public good and stick to the facts.

Rand Paul, Racism and Utopia

Wanna a read a great defense and indictment of libertarian utopianism?  (You know you do!)  Well, here’s Julian Sanchez, writing in Newsweek about the Rand Paul dust up.

A taste:

Yet there’s nothing intrinsically racist in the argument in favor of property rights—and indeed, any real liberal ought to at least have some sympathy for it. Strong property rights have often been the friend of unpopular minorities: Jim Crow laws were imposed precisely because racists feared the South’s rigid caste system would collapse if business owners were free to integrate, as historian Charles Wynes noted in his 1961 study Race Relations in Virginia. After that long apartheid imposed on consumer preferences, it might have been too sanguine to hope market forces alone would have ushered in desegregation as rapidly as the Civil Rights Act did. But history is littered with tribal boundaries shattered by commerce, and formal law yielded no instant solution either. (A ban on formal segregation could only do so much in practice where majorities were determined to exclude blacks by means less explicit but barely more subtle than signs announcing “whites only.”)

…

Unfortunately, history happened. Rules for utopia can deal with individual crimes—the mugger and the killer and the vandal—but they stumble in the face of societywide injustice. They tell us the state shouldn’t sanction the brutal enslavement or humiliating legal subordination of a people; they have less to say about what to do once we have. They tell us to respect the sanctity of the property rights that would arise as free people tamed the wilderness in John Locke’s state of nature. They have less to say about the sanctity of property built on generations of slave sweat and blood.

God bless Julian Sanchez.

The Liberals and Helena Guergis

So, is it obvious to anyone else but me that the Liberals are now setting the stage to court Helena Guergis over to the Liberal Party of Canada?

Their rhetoric against the government (about how this Minister was incompetent and that her behaviour was unacceptable as an MP et al.) and the demands that she should be fired was going full steam when they felt fairly confident that the Conservatives wouldn’t do anything about it.

Now, when the Government took immediate action and left them flat-footed and windless, they are shocked and dismayed that an MP should be so callously treated by their Party.

The Liberals, and the Liberal Party of Canada, have become so conciliatory lately in their language and are painting her in the role of the “victim” at the hands of a ruthless and unforgiving Conservative Party of Canada.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if even already, Ms. Guergis has been quietly assured (or at least has had it suggested) that there would be a place for her with the Liberals, if she so chose. And why not? She appears to have significant backing in her riding and may very well be a “winner” in the next election, provided she was running for a Party instead of as an Independant.

And she wouldn’t even have to “cross the floor” to do it.

End result for the Liberals? If you can’t take the riding with a Liberal, try and pinch it with a former Conservative.

Facebook is a Utility; Even if I Don’t Know What that Means

Do you want to read a really horrible blog post?  Danah Boyd has penned… well… something titled, Facebook is a utility; utilities get regulated.  Here, I’ll give you a little sample:

Thus far, in the world of privacy, when a company oversteps its hand…

What?  How do you overstep you overstep your hand, doing a crab walk?  Usually, I wouldn’t bring attention to such a massacred metaphor, but it’s a pretty good demonstration of the level of quality of the post.

So, what, you may ask, is the point of the post?  As far as I can tell, Ms. Boyd is claiming that Facebook is – and wants to be – a utility, and, consequently, it will get regulated.  She supports the argument by writing that Facebook is a utility, and utilities get regulated.  She further supports the claim by arguing that Facebook is a util… well, you get the picture.  From what I understand, the definition of utility is “something you use a lot and then gets regulated”.

(By the way, she doesn’t really say this is a bad thing.  She seems to generally dislike regulations, but she likes governments threatening regulations.)

In the comments, one reader brings up the idea of Facebook as a public good (which it isn’t, but almost is).  Here’s the thing about the post and this accompanying comment.  They talk about utilities and public goods.  As with many discussions of such topics, they keep using these words.  I do not think the words mean what they think they mean.

It’d be really nice if people who continuously talk about “public goods” would actually bother to learn what the term means.  It does not mean, “I’d like the government to pay for anything that I think is really imporant”.  Hell, if it does, then the complete series of The Wire is a public good.

I’ll expect my copy to arrive in the mail soon.

Why children?

Every week, it seems, we hear of another tragic attack on nursery/day care/pre-school children in China. Yesterday:

… seven children and two adults were “hacked to death” and at least 20 people were injured in an attack in the central Shaanxi province….

As read in the news, the reasons for the murderous rampages range from jilted lovers to land disputes to the nebulous “social inequity.” Heaven knows men and women have killed each other over such things throughout history. There’s nothing new on that front.

But what’s the deal with cutting up little children? Why are they the target instead of the cheating lover or quarrelsome neighbour or the local police chief or government land crony? Is it simply the ease of access to the target? Even then, what is the purpose of attacking innocent children given it completely undermines the assailant’s cause?

It’s just baffling.

Harper vs. Ignatieff

Stephen Harper often speaks glowingly about the Canadian economy. And with reason, because Canada has weathered the storm that has rattled the economic foundations of many countries over the past 18-24 months.

But Michael Ignatieff argues that Harper does not give enough credit to his Liberal predecessors, both Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien:

Meanwhile, when Stephen Harper goes around the world boasting about Canada’s economy – what he’s really boasting about is the Liberal record.

So, is Ignatieff right?

It appears so, according to The Economist:

Much of the country’s resilience stems from policies—such as bank regulation and sound public finances—which predate Mr Harper.

Bring down Conservatives over Afghan detainee documents

This Afghan detainee torture-transfer issue makes me want to see a contempt of parliament motion to bring down this minority Conservative government. I think the NDP can do that. However, my suspicion is that the Conservatives want that too — you know, part of their secret agenda and all.

Regardless, blacking out texts is behavior that belongs with the Soviet Union: better dead than red.

Taking Stock of Michael Ignatieff

This month, May 2010, marks Michael Ignatieff’s one-year anniversary as the official leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. (He became interim leader in December 2008, and leader in May 2009.)

How has he performed, in your view?

No one could reasonably argue that he has lived up to the high expectations that both he and others set for himself. Perhaps no politician could have met that standard.

But setting aside the lofty comparisons that his admirers made to Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Barack Obama, what has gone well for him, what has gone not-so-well for him, and what does his future hold?

Here is one rather critical perspective from James Murray:

It is likely that many senior Liberals realize that a mistake was made when Ignatieff was ceded the party leadership. It is also likely that few within the party are willing to take their concerns public, just yet.

However if the second quarter fundraising results, and the poll numbers remain dismal it is likely that by September Ignatieff might be more comfortable back behind the lectern at Harvard.

Maybe. Maybe not.

For my money, I have always admired Michael Ignatieff, the public intellectual. Rarely did I find his commentary in print and on the air anything but sharp and nuanced, profound yet accessible, elegant and moving, interesting and often correct.

It is therefore no leap for me to say that I regard him as one of the great thinkers of his generation, a progressive cultural and political critic whose contribution to our public discourse will endure well past his own years.

But to achieve greatness in politics demands different sensibilities and talents.

I don’t know whether Michael Ignatieff can be a great Prime Minister, or even Prime Minister at all. But I am not yet ready to shut the door on that possibility.

What do you think?

A Look Inside the War on Drugs

If you want another reason that North America’s drug laws are an affront to human decency, check out the video here.  You can watch a police raid that nets a small amount of marijuana, terrorizes a child and results in the shooting of the family pets.  It’s a horrible video to watch, but it’s an important video to watch.

There are times when it seems that only criminals have the guns… and badges… and handcuffs.

(H/T: Radley Balko and Erik Kain)

Next Page »