Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

(Other people's) thoughts on Greenpeace

Love 'em or hate 'em, Greenpeace has certainly stirred up some controversy since setting up shop in Alberta almost one year ago. Their latest stunt produced a number of stories and opinion pieces on the group. Here are a few of the most interesting items, for your reading pleasure:

1. See Magazine's Angela Brunschot takes a comprehensive look at Greenpeace's impact on Alberta's political sphere.
2. The Calgary Sun's Ian Robinson has a semi-coherent rant comparing Greenpeace unfavorably to Hitler.
3. Bruce Cox, Executive Director of Greenpeace Canada responds to Ian Robinson (via Facebook).

While these articles conceptualize a few sides of the debate here at home in Alberta, they don't even begin to capture the organization's achievements the world over since forming in Vancouver in 1971. I have to admit, I have a pretty big soft spot in my heart for Greenpeace, and will be posting some of my own thoughts on the group and its strategies in the near future. In the meantime, anyone interested in learning more about the history of the Canadian environmental movement (including Greenpeace), should check out this fantastic blog: The Great Green North.

* The picture above is of Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter; it was taken in the early 1970s, shortly after the group's founding. Hunter passed away in 2005 at the age of 63.

Alberta's Treasury Board President caught idling his huge pickup truck in the middle of July

Knuckles! This is just so ridiculous, I almost wouldn't believe it if it were anyone but you:

In a post this morning on his blog That Internet Thing, Todd Babiak has a simultaneously hilarious and depressing account of how on his morning bike ride to work, he inadvertently caught Treasury Board President Lloyd Snelgrove idling his massive pick-up truck for a lengthy period of time outside the Legislature in the middle of July. According to Babiak,

"This morning, on my way into work, the air was a comfortable 18C. It was perfect, really, no longer cool but not yet hot. I rode my bike through the legislature grounds only to discover a giant truck idling on the east side of the building. No one was near. It was, again, not hot out. So why was it idling?      

I waited for some time, to ask the driver this crucial question. No driver appeared. I have a job, so I had to leave eventually — though not before noting the license plate number:

VLMLA.

It only took a little bit of sleuthing to discover it was the pick-up truck of the Honourable Lloyd Snelgrove, MLA for Vermilion-Lloydminster and President of the Treasury Board. Basically, he's in charge of the billions and how they're spent.

Now, Minister Snelgrove should not be blamed, per se. Well, a little bit, as it was EIGHTEEN DEGREES OUT. But something happens to people in power. Something... interesting. No one is immune.

However, since we do pay car and fuel allowances to our elected members, it might be nice to get some value for our money. It might be nice to see an effort at conservation from our political leadership. Even if they don't believe in climate change, they're supposed to believe in tight fiscal management. Minister Snelgrove, again, is the PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD.

What is the root of the word conservative, anyway?...

(emphasis mine; read the rest of the post at That Internet Thing)

I think Babiak does a great job of covering all the main points and sarcasm here, so I'll just end this with a request: please - if there are any PCs out there who want to take a stab at defending Snelgrove's behavior - I would love to hear the rationale for idling a massive pick-up truck filled with taxpayer-funded, carbon-emitting fossil fuels in the middle of July. I have a feeling there aren't too many people who would step up to the plate on this one. It's just too bad this story won't make it into any mainstream media, I'm sure there are a lot of Albertans angry at taxes and gas prices who might just find Snelgrove's flagrant disrespect for the principle of fiscal (and ecological) conservation offensive.

Edmonton speaks: the only thing we'll spend frivolously on is overpasses!

Scores of angry Edmontonians who haven't seen this kind of rage since, well, February, when the goddam idiots at city hall didn't plow their street for a whole goddam week can rest easy today, as it's now official: council has voted down the proposal (for which they held a design competition roughly a year and a half ago) to build entrance markers on highway 16 at the city's east and west borders.

After hearing this, I was initially disappointed. Not only because I liked the design, but because what this said to me about the priorities of my fellow citizens.  According to the Journal story linked to above, the total marginal cost of these markers would have been $300 000. It makes me sad that Edmontonians don't blink when council decides to spend $250 million on an overpass (as they did last fall), but scream bloody murder when it's proposed that we spend 0.12% of that to make the city a more beautiful place.

However, I eventually realized as much as I might have liked the design, the uproar surrounding it probably says something: these markers simply don't suit the personality of our city. The cynic in me says that this is because they're bold -- we're a lot of things in Edmonton, but we're definitely not bold -- and because they would be a brash embodiment of one of the greatest sins our city knows: not doing something as cheaply as humanly possible (unless it involves roads/overpasses). Continuing my cynical line of thought, I got the idea that to replace the current signs, we should take a 4 X 8 sheet of plywood, stencil "Welcome to Edmonton" on it with some paint from Home Depot, and nail it to a couple of wood stakes. That would reflect our city and what its citizens value much more accurately than this glass pyramid could have -- and save a shitload of cash!

But, like I said, that's a cynic's view. Construing this issue more positively, one could call the monument flashy and frivolous, and Edmontonians are definitely neither of those things. And although I think it's somewhat despicable that council had a design competition and then didn't even build the thing -- a classic example of Edmontonian waffling -- I think there are some important lessons that can be learned from this fiasco.

This city is sorely in need of some kind of unifying idea of what we are and what we stand for -- basically, what it means to be an Edmontonian or be in Edmonton. I think it's time that us Edmontonians and our leaders recognize ourselves for what we are, and I think looking at this issue can help us to do that. As a city, we're pragmatic, staid, risk-averse, cheap, and generally unconcerned with aesthetics. Although this probably doesn't quite align with Richard Florida's conception of what a modern city should look like, it's what we've got and I think we need to accept and appreciate that.

I think that's what builds an identity: becoming aware of your city's virtues and its faults and embracing them because that's what makes where you live peculiar. It seems like these entrance markers were designed and selected by the jury of the design competition more to nudge our city in a particular direction, rather than celebrate it as it is right now.  I think that's ultimately why the proposal failed, and why, as much as I liked the design, this is probably a good thing.

Still feeling disappointed? Think of all the potholes we'll be able to fill with the $300 000 we saved!

Photo post: Greenpeace Syncrude tailings pond stunt

The story (h/t Daveberta). Some media coverage. A huge version of this picture here (where you can see more closely two activists in haz mat suits installing a cap on the pipe while workers look on). More pictures here.

Mo Elsahly enters the Alberta Liberal leadership race

Former Edmonton McClung MLA, who was unseated by David Xiao in the last election has announced his leadership intentions. Although Elsalhy has not held an official kick-off event as of yet, he did make his intentions clear and very public in an interview with Calgary Herald reporter Renata D'Aliesio yesterday.

Check it out: www.elsalhy.com,

And then there were two.

Modern Day 'Reefer Madness'

If you haven't seen it already, The Globe and Mail's resident 'truthiness' expert, Margaret Wente has an incredibly stupid column on pot legalization in today's paper.

Wente essentially misrepresents the facts on cannabis use and regulation in Canada, instead choosing to substitute evidence that is so misinformed--so utterly refuted--that she could only have taken it from the film 'Reefer Madness.' Cannabis policy is near and dear to my heart, and I have written extensively on this matter in the past. Thus, I had to take the time to dispel some of Wente's ignorant claims.

1. In BC, "entire towns have turned to cultivating cannabis."

Riiiight, and if Wente actually knew about these mythical pot utopias why hasn't she called the RCMP?

2. "Full commercial legalization of cannabis, on the model now applied to alcohol, would vastly increase the cannabis-abuse problem by giving the marketing geniuses who have done such a fine job persuading children to smoke tobacco, drink to excess and super-size themselves another vice to foster,"

No one in drug policy scholarship would ever advocate a full commercialization of pot. Look how well that's worked with alcohol! Alcohol is a drug that stimulates violent behaviour, has greater addictive properties than cannabis and wreaks havoc on the bodies of those not using it in moderation (teenage binge drinkers included).
Most researchers advocating for pot legalization argue it should be controlled by the state and based on a model of demand reduction. This public health approach is similar to the way tobacco regulation is moving: (it is becoming increasingly harder for people to use and the health risks contribute to sense of social stigma), but it takes the for-profit element right out of it.  People could still obtain pot, wouldn't have to deal with criminal elements and would have accurate information on the risks and benefits of it's use (and resources to help them stop using). There would be no advertising encouraging people to use cannabis.

3. Legalizing pot would surely drive up use — and abuse.

Actually,  the Netherlands, which has a system of de facto legalization, has one of the lowest rates of past  cannabis use in the West. Only 19% of people report ever having used cannabis, versus Canada's 44.6% (according to the 2004 Canadian Addiction Study). In addition, in Western Australia, where cannabis was decriminalized in 2003, use rate have dropped 7% according to that countries National Drug Research Institute. It's generally accepted amongst people who actually know something about drug policy that there is little correlation between regulatory regime and use rates when it comes to cannabis.

4. Nor is pot completely harmless, even though I am sure that you, dear reader, handle it just fine. It's three times stronger than it used to be and, for a minority of people, it's very bad indeed.

Using pot is not a trivial matter and there certainly are health risks associated with long term use. But, many of these effect are confined to problematic users (which make up about 1% of Canada's cannabis using population).
As for the stuff about pot being more potent nowadays, that's total bunk. First, high potency pot has always been around, so if you smoked a joint or two in your day, you may have already consumed some of this 'killer weed.' Second, samples of confiscated weed indicate that the highest potency weed sold in the US is generally 7% THC content. That's half the Netherlands' medical cannabis standard for concentration. Generally, potency over the last three decades has increased roughly 2% and there is still no evidence to indicate that higher concentrations of THC have a negative effect on the user. Check ou this Op-Ed by a prominent American cannabis policy scholar, for more info.

5. Legalizers contend that marijuana laws do far more harm than marijuana does. They love to conjure up an image of prisons stuffed with innocent kids who were caught with a J or two. But that's a myth. Simple possession has been decriminalized in practice, if not in law. Under the Young Offenders Act, no kid gets a record for a drug offence. And cops don't bother to lay possession charges against adults, unless they also catch them doing something else.

At the end of the 20th century, 700 000 Canadians had criminal records for cannabis possession.  That means, limited employment opportunities and restricted foreign travel for almost a million people. A past president of the CMA put it well when he argued that to the extent a criminal record negatively affects the economic circumstances of an individual that legal outcome impacts the individual's health, because economic status and health are so intertwined in Canada. In, 2001 77% (approx. 70 800) of ALL drug offences were for cannabis crimes. Of those, 70% were for possession. (see the 2002 Senate Special Committee Report, which, by the way recommended that Canada legalize marijuana).
Moreover, Since Harper took office, possession offenses have skyrocketed, with some cities reporting 20 to 60% increases.

6. People should probably be allowed to have and grow small amounts of pot for their own use, and that the cops should direct their efforts toward the most violent criminal dealing groups. Which is about what we do now.

Actually growing marijuana implies intent to distribute and that is taken very seriously by law enforcement in this country. It also requires a lot of effort, especially when it must be cultivated surreptitiously. The vast majority of Canadian users get their pot from organized crime syndicates.

So there you have it Margaret Wente is at best misinformed on cannabis and at worst deliberately trying to mislead her readership. I guess I shouldn't expect better from the same woman who last week argued that Canada's contemporary response to illegal drugs gratuitously favours harm reduction. A glance at Canada's anti-drug strategy website displays the stupidity of this claim--Health Canada offically denounced harm reduction in 2007, and removed all mention of it from it's website. Where there were four pillars (harm reduction, prevention, treatment, and enforcement) now stands three. I guess the Globe's fact checking budget was a little short this month.

Just what Canada needs...

... yet another squeaky wheel in confederation.

Apparently, Dalton McGuinty is calling on Ontarians to "stand up for [Ontario]" as he pressures Ottawa to reform the federal equalization program in the face of his province's fading fortunes.

Does anyone else find it funny that pretty much every single province thinks they're getting screwed over by Ottawa? This says to me that, as a country, we should do one of two things:

1. Split Canada into 13 separate countries
2. Do away with the provincial/territorial level of government entirely

Either one would be great, if only so we could all get a break from our premiers issuing melodramatic calls-to-arm to their citizens. It would be especially awesome for Albertans to get a break from the spectacular irony of our provincial government playing the role of victim while we role out consecutive multi-billion dollar surpluses, although option 1 might kind of suck when our one-dimensional economy collapses and we have no one to bail us out.

Just a thought...

Dave drops 'deputy'?

The Alberta Liberals' worst kept secret became official this morning when Deputy Leader and Calgary Currie MLA Dave Taylor announced his bid for leadership of the limping party. Since he was first elected four years ago, Taylor - a former radio announcer with a big voice and often even bigger head - has made little secret of his eventual desire to take over from Kevin Taft.

It is reasonable to expect that the result of Liberals' leadership contest will hinge on the desirability of each candidate's proposed solution to the party's existential crisis. In this respect and to his credit, Taylor has already put forward his vision for the party (by allying himself with the 'New Liberal' group and its somewhat aggressive defender Cory Hogan).

Taylor is considered by many to be a frontrunner, which puts an interesting spin on the classic 'Battle of Alberta' paradigm. Could it be that the main push for a revitalized opposition in this province is coming from not Redmonton, but rather from a centrist politician from the home of big oil and big bank accounts, Calgary? If so, what shape will this opposition take? Is this a parade the traditional, more left-leaning Edmonton Liberals are willing to get behind? Either way,  it will be interesting to see how both the race and the Liberals convention in October plays out. Whatever happens, you can bet that the shape and success/failure of any renewed opposition movement will say a lot more about our province than a rushed commentator like myself ever could.

For more on Taylor's campaign, check out his (barely functional) website at www.tayloralberta.ca

Sunday afternoon grab-bag

Yes, we realize we should be outside with the rest of Edmonton enjoying this glorious July day instead being cloistered in a stuffy library reading stale Alberta-related news stories of questionable relevance. And yes, we realize that most of you aren't pasty mutants like us and probably won't read this until tomorrow anyway. Neither of that is of concern to the AGRDT team.

With that out of the way:

1. "Alberta envy" is on the rise, according to this story in the Calgary Herald (h/t Grandinite) that interviews the three premiers preceding Stelmach (Lougheed, Getty, Klein; listed in order of chronology and exponentially descending competence) to get their opinions on the matter. The piece in itself is largely short on insights, but has a telling passage at the end, when the former premiers are each asked what they think should be done to deal with this "Alberta envy."

Lougheed argued Alberta must extend the olive branch to the rest of Canada...

"The more you can come up with some pro-Canadian initiatives," Lougheed said, "the more the people understand what we're trying to do is be positive about Canada and not selfish about Alberta."

Klein doesn't necessarily agree with that approach.

He said the government should get out of the business of being in business and shouldn't be too worried about launching projects that appease other provinces.

The contrast of those quotes is, to me, a pretty good metaphor for the festering and decay of the once vital, creative, and outward-looking PC party into it's current putrid and depleted state. The PC party of the mid-70s is a party I would support, and is, I think, the party that David Swann, Joe Anglin, and everyone else attending Democratic Renewal Town Hall meetings wants (and needs) to create.

2. Crime in almost every category is down across Canada, according to this CBC story. The categories in which there weren't drops? "Drug offenses," thanks to "an increase in arrests for cannabis possession," and impaired driving, which rose 3% nationally "largely because of a 19 per cent surge in Alberta."   

Yes, this could have very likely have been because of an increase in enforcement measures within the province, which would be a good thing. But is anyone else starting to dread the release of any kind of statistical study comparing the provinces in which Alberta will invariably be at the bottom, unless it's about money, pollution, or knife crime, in which case we'll be right at the top? Why can't we ever be, like, 6th place on something?

3. I've got a beef with Edmonton mainstay the Sugarbowl on 87th ave. For those of you who haven't been, they have an extensive beer list, tasty eats, friendly staff, good music, and some of the best restaurant/cafe/lounge space in the city. My problem: the coffee is brutal. Dear Sugarbowl: please improve your coffee.   

We (heart) Alberta Views

And why is that? Because every month they bring Albertans thought-provoking and original content like this, an article by Evan Osenton that examines the impact and potential of the fledgling Green Party on Alberta's political scene. The piece is quite timely, given not only the ever-increasing prominence of environmental issues in the lives of Albertans and other Canadians, but the state of flux in which our provincial opposition parties find themselves. It even has interviews with both George Read and Preston Manning!

Sound exciting? We thought so. Give it a read, and if you like it, next time you're at the newsstand think about delaying that purchase of Dog Fancy until next month and picking up a copy of Alberta Views, an all-too-rare example of first-rate Albertan publishing.

Democratic Renewal Town Hall: effective, or simply cathartic?

Those of you who are among Daveberta's swarming legions of readers (as I am) will know about the Democratic Renewal Town Hall meeting, put on by Liberal MLA David Swann on Monday night. Two members of the AGRDT corps (myself included) were in attendance, so I thought I'd relay what we saw (with a fringe-left-wing spin, of course) and offer up some analysis. And yes, I realize this was now 3 days ago, but I just got back from vacation, and most of my time thus far has been spent kissing Alberta's sweet soil.

The conservative trolls that fill the comment sections on Daveberta were out in force in the post I link to above that announces the meeting, referring to it as "partisan" and an "Liberal party event." My first impression was that the organizers gave people of this mindset a lot of ammunition. Laurie Blakeman is a good MLA, but I really don't know why they decided it would be a good idea for her to co-host the event. It added little, except to the perception of the proceedings being an ALP function.

Which, I think, it's safe to say this wasn't. Although it was hosted by 2 Liberal MLAs and most of the caucus (along with a number of recently defeated members) were in attendance, the Alberta Greens were also strongly represented, and there was also a smattering of NDP members and even conservatives (some disgruntled, some simply seeing what the other side is up to).

I think the makeup of the crowd says a lot about who will be involved in this "movement," and, less obviously, speaks to who stands to benefit from whatever form this movement takes. The relatively high numbers of Liberals and low numbers of tories were no surprise, for obvious reasons. What was interesting to me was the high number of Greens relative to NDPs, especially when one considers the relative numbers of their supporters in Edmonton. To me this demonstrates the relative pragmatism of the two parties; the Greens seem more willing to compromise some of their principles -- which is ultimately what a movement that hopes to attract participants from across the spectrum would require -- than the NDPs, many of whom seem content with with their party's continuing slide into irrelevance within the province.

The panel was pretty good and there were some surprisingly high-quality questions and comments from the audience that were thankfully devoid of the self-indulgent rambling that often happens when one opens up a microphone to the general public.

Discussion took a panel format in which each of the four panelists (Sarah Arthurs, Les Brost, Joe Anglin, and Ken Chapman) were each given about 10 minutes to speak on topics broadly related to the state of democracy in contemporary Alberta, and then the floor was opened up for questions. Arthurs spoke of the need for conscious engagement in the political process. Brost spoke (or, rather, seethed) about the importance of media in a healthy democracy and the manner in which role and health of the media suffered greatly under Klein. Anglin talked (agressively) about his general dismay with the state of affairs in the province and the need to tackle the problem directly, and Chapman posited that the problems we're currently facing today (ie low voter turnout) were the result of outdated institutions ("be 'post-partisan'") and underscored several times that "you can't make people show up."

Questions then followed that ran a fairly wide gamut. For the sake of brevity (and because I don't really remember them all), I'll say that the ones that seemed to draw the most applause were the ones directly related to removing the PCs from power, ie "what form do you see opposition to the PCs taking?" This, to me, was the best question asked all night, and helped to shed a bit of light on what we can expect. From his answer to this question and comments throughout the night, it was clear that Swann is interested in "something new;" what exactly this was, he wasn't exactly clear on, but talking to people afterwards I got the impression that there were plans to introduce a fairly radical motion at the upcoming Liberal AGM. Anglin also gave me the impression that he was interested in going the all-new route; he spoke of the need for change, but stated that "we don't need a so-called unite-the-left movement." Unfortunately, details beyond this were fairly sketchy, but we did at least get a hint at would could possibly be in the works. I can definitely say that for the first time in, well, ever, I'll be eagerly awaiting news from the Alberta Liberal Party AGM...

Some other highlights:

1. Joe Anglin. This is the first time I've ever seen him speak and he is pretty good. He doesn't so much give a speech as reem out the audience, but it's very engaging and I couldn't take my eyes off him. He is shamelessly combative and really enjoys likening politics to a "battle" ("Politics is a battle! Politics is all about confrontation! WAKE UP!", "I'm not out to be liked. I'm out to fight a battle"), and he is equally shameless in his indictment of the Tory government.  His style was unapologetically down-to-earth (ie, referring to Strathcona as "hippie heaven"), which would, I think, give him credibility in the eyes of many voters that this movement would need to reach. It was a pleasure to finally see him in action and I hope he remains involved.

2. Ken Chapman. The man, a federal Liberal and provincial PC, is a walking contradiction, and he did not fail to disappoint in this respect.  He probably has the most political knowledge of the panelists and did a good job providing a conservative counterweight to the proceedings, but I think he really stumbled in one respect. He kept emphasizing that what was happening in Alberta was a "citizens problem" and not a "partisan problem," and emphasizing that his party shouldn't be blamed for the poor voter turnout, and that we really shouldn't be too worried about it because "we can't force people to show up." Aside from being obviously self-serving, he completely overlooked the fact that the toxic political culture in our province is largely the result of the policies of his own party. In any case, it was nice to have a dissenting voice, especially one that was knowledgeable and generally reasonable.

3. Conservative cadre. There were a group of 5-6 young tories (definitely of the "seeing what the other side is up to" variety) in the room sitting beside one another that, when the action at the front was waning, provided some entertainment of their own. One highlight was when Sarah Arthurs asked audience members who had Blackberries to put up their hands and the entire conservative cadre raised their hands, reinforcing a number of stereotypes in the process. Also funny was their raucous applause -- after 30 minutes of disinterested Blackberry checking -- when Ken Chapman suggested that we're too hard on politicians (which, admittedly, I agree with). This was pretty rich coming from a party that's victory largely consisted of painting the opposition leader as an "academic egghead." Probably the best moment, though, was this exchange:

Joe Anglin: Stelmach giving the cabinet a raise was the best money he ever spent!
Young tories: [raucous applause]
Joe Anglin: I can't tell you how many conservatives come up to me afterwards and said "I can't wait to vote for you in the next election!"
Young tories: [a bit of applause which quickly tailed off and was followed by sheepish silence.]

Young tories: always good for a laugh!

In case anyone is actually still reading: in summary, the meeting was good for me if only because it functioned as an outlet of sorts for the frustrations I have with the government that I would usually excise by sobbing into a pillow. It was also really encouraging to see a lot of people, particularly in audience, we seemed really focused on actually doing something; I got the impression from many people that it was great that we were having discussions about the state of democracy in our province and such things are certainly long overdue, but the real task at hand is defeating the Tories.

In any case, here's hoping that meetings like this grow not only more frequent, but larger in scope. And, in the spirit of Michelle Obama, a big, virtual, terrorist fist-bump to David Swann for his continued coordination of these discussions.

Women, the US media and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

You may recall that a while back I posted a video montage of all the sexist remarks spewed at Hilary Clinton during the Democratic nomination campaign. With Clinton now out of the spotlight, it seems the US media (and Fox, in particular) have now set their sights on Michelle Obama. Seeing all the racist, sexist remarks they've made thus far in the campaign truly inspires anger and disbelief.

via Michelle Obama Watch.

Confessions of an Alberta Liberal electioneer

Here's another guest post for AGRDT readers to mull over. It's written by an admittedly partisan Alberta Liberal about their own personal experience of the Alberta 2008 election. AGRDT (out of curiosity) asked this person to write up their comments after the party officially requested that the Auditor General look into the election, last week.

Top Ten Reasons We Need to Overhaul the Electoral Process in this Province: An Insider’s perspective of 2008 provincial election

AGRDT readers are well aware the Alberta provincial election ended over 4 months ago, so you're probably wondering, why the Liberals are still talking about it? Well, the outcome of that fateful vote is going to effect (haunt) progressive citizens of Alberta for the next four years. So I thought that  I would jump on the mainstream-media bandwagon, and discuss the request from the Alberta Liberals to the Auditor General to investigate the undemocratic nature of the past election.

While many have criticized the Alberta Liberals for sounding like a bunch of ‘sour grapes,’ sending this request far to late after the election, it is important to note that the same requests and evidence was sent to Chief Electoral Officer at Elections Alberta during and immediately after the election. Since nothing was done, the Liberals decided to kick it up a notch by sending it directly to the Auditor General.

Yeah, the timing sucks, yeah it sounds like whining, but it is what it is. Let me give you some background info. I am an individual who was very involved with the election. For mainly cathartic purposes, I have decided to share my favorite acts of electoral corruption. I could probably write a top 50 if I was more motivated, instead I'll just list ten. Before we begin, you should know, I'm writing this not because I think  a seamless, fair election would have changed the outcome and brought the ALP to power, I'm writing this because it's shameful that this is what the democratic process in this province looks like.

10. More than half the returning officers (or their spouses) were active members and donors of the PC party.

9. Elections Alberta officials were overheard reminiscing how PC conventions were more fun in the Don Getty era.

8. The new electoral divisions were not complete until half way through the election. For those of you who haven’t worked on a campaign, take my word, this is a BIG deal.

7. Most people didn’t know where to vote because they didn’t receive voters cards with a location on them, poll stations changed the day of and the Elections Alberta ‘Where to Vote Guide’ was incorrect the first time, so they had to send it out a second time (keep in mind the campaign is only 28 days long)

6. Elections Alberta’s website was down for most of the morning on election day. This likely    contributed to one of the lowest voter turnouts in the history of Alberta.

5. Due to poor pre-election organization, voters lists all over the province were incomplete. At least a few sneaky voters were caught casting a ballot more than once. I'm sure many more weren’t caught.

4. PC candidates, scrutineers and returning officers were reported to be campaigning in and around the polling stations on Elections Day. Obviously, that is against the rules. Technically, you can't even wear partisan colors to the polling station if you are a candidate or official.

3. Hundreds of Metis in West Yellowhead weren’t allowed to vote because they didn’t have a mail box number. They only had proof of land location, and that just wasn’t good enough for Elections Alberta. Just when I thought we were beyond disenfranchising First Nations.

2. Tony Roma’s gift certificates were given to individuals in one particular Edmonton constituency when they promised to put a PC sign up on their lawn. This is the epitome of the old adage, money buys votes.

1. And my favorite… in yet another Edmonton constituency, a PC candidate made homemade signs, written in a language other than english, instructing members of his cultural community to vote for him. People requiring translation services would than be accompanied by a member of the candidate's campaign team into the voting booth. These signs indicated precisely which box to check. While I completely endorse all members of the community voting; translation services and voting aides should have be under the purview of Elections Alberta and not  PC campaign staff.

Find some related media reports here, here and here. Or check these previous AGRDT posts.

You don't have to believe everything is this post, but it is difficult to deny that something is broken in Alberta's democracy. Have a different experience of the last Alberta election, or your own complaint? That's what the comment section is for.

"I think Mr. Stelmach is scared, and I think it's funny"

Alberta Green party leader, George Read has an interesting take on the latest diversion in Alberta politics. He suggests that the only reason Alberta government is looking at changing our beloved Wild Rose license  plate is because Stelmach is afraid of the right-wing Wild Rose Alliance Party. In an interview with CBC, Read states "I think Mr. Stelmach is scared, and I think it's funny." Scared? Probably not. He did win the election by an overwhelming majority. Petty? Now that's a theory I could get behind.

Whatever the reason for the (what is likely costing close to a million) license plate 'upgrade,' I have to express my overall disgust with the current front-runner in the new slogan race. If Tory MLAs have there way 'Strong and Free' will be emblazoned on Alberta's new license plates.** As political scientist, David Taras argues, "These are words that ring in the American national anthem, on American licence plates, in the American Declaration of Independence."

These words, when utilized by one province of a confederation, convey a go-it-alone spirit that is so thoroughly American. Thus, I'm guessing the plate will also include new red, white and blue colors and perhaps a bald eagle motif. But seriously, can't we be a little more creative here? Do Albertans really want to be that closely associated with the US? I'd say no. Unfortunately, it appears citizens won't have much of a say on this matter (despite the government's own survey indicating that at least 50% of people want the licence plate left alone). Such is life in Alberta, I guess.

**My favourite Alberta MLA, Lloyd Snelgrove was actually the first to 'suggest' the Strong and Free slogan. It was then prominently placed on the government's online survey.

"Yee-haw."

Morgentaler gets (long overdue) Order of Canada

Props to Four Strong Winds, for writing a post that basically encapsulates what all of us at AGRDT  have been thinking about this Morgentaler-Order of Canada 'issue' (but have been too lazy/busy/overseas to write about).  Also, a thank you to those unsung people fighting for abortion rights for women all over.

Last Call for Cheap Alcohol in Alberta

The 25 cent draft and $1 hi-balls that are so ubiquitous in the lives of many 18 and 19 year-old Albertans will soon be a thing of the past. This morning the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission announced new rules that will put the kibosh on selling liquor for less than $2.75 and a pint of beer for less than $3.20. In addition, bars will be unable to sell discounted drinks after 8:00 pm. These rules kick in August 1st and were created with the sole intention of curbing the alcohol-fueled violence so commonly found at about 2:00am on Whyte Ave in Edmonton and 17th ave in Calgary (and other nightlife hot spots around the province).

I for one am all about eliminating this kind of drunk debauchery. Being young and social I certainly enjoy patronizing many pubs and clubs in the Edmonton area, but it's increasingly painful to see what Jasper Ave. and Whyte Ave. are turning into. Admittedly these areas have always been rowdy, but in the last few years it seems they have taken on a surly and even dangerous character. I'm sick of having my ass grabbed by complete strangers when waiting at a crosswalk, side-stepping piles of vomit on the sidewalk, having to avoid the fisticuffs that spill out of bars, or seeing some random rig-pig pissing on the boulevard.

This kind of behavior occurs to varying degrees all over this country, but after having partied in many, many Canadian cities, I must say Alberta is particularly bad. So what is it that makes Edmonton and Calgary so much worse than Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Ottawa? It's a problem of geographic space and culture. Blogger and writer, Amy Fung suggests that

Edmonton is a transient stop, the "big" city with over half a dozen satellite cities and counties, whose young and restless blow into town with the sole purpose of getting absolutely trashed on their big night out. Concentrated, destructive, they disperse again leaving downtown and Strathcona sticky and stained. Of course residents frequent these areas too on the weekend, but the overwhelming majority are not. Edmonton is shedding its 'big city with a small town mentality' image with a much more dismal notion of being a small town with big city problems.

I would say this boomtown logic applies to Calgary as well. But it's not just geography that contributes to this kind of environment. It's culture, or a lack there of. Compared to other cities in this country, there is relatively little to do for people looking to have a good time on a Saturday night (especially during the winter months). So instead, young people flock to the bar, the pub, the club or the tavern to spend their (in many cases) lucrative wages and consort with others. The organizer of the Sled Island music festival puts it well in his lament about the state of Calgary's cultural scene:

Money is there by the bucket load - but where is it going? How different would Calgary look if we focused on educating ourselves and attracting bright minds to our city? Would the epicenter of our greatest civic celebration still consist of drunk millionaires renting cocaine dusted barbie dolls at an outhouse smelling parking lot behind a downtown theme-bar?

It's a powerful image, and sadly, it's not far off the mark. Thus, while I applaud the Alberta government's attempt to curb the drunken debauchery and general shadyness that is the hallmark of a night out in Alberta's urban centres, I don't think increasing the price of alcoholic beverages is going to make much of a difference. When there is little to do on a Saturday night, Alberta's large number of restless young people will still get drunk, even if there hi-ball costs $2.75 instead of a loonie.