Audit Hijinks

The Feds announced today that they are cutting out internal auditors in four regional development agencies and giving that responsibility to another department already facing a shrinking budget.  According to PSAC, the union representing the auditors, this will make losing, rather than saving, taxpayer money more likely. Apparently, the government doesn't need to audit itself, what with it being so transparent and all. We shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about what they are doing. We shouldn't worry about Bev Oda living large in London or the F-35s. They've got it all under control. 

Generally, I wouldn't pay much attention to this particular news item, except that in the Federal Budget, the Cons promised to add $8M to the budget to do another kind of audit, a kind of audit that they feel is way more important than looking over their own shoulders. They're spending an extra $8M to audit - wait for it - charities. They want to make sure that Canadian charities don't exceed the 10% rule, that is, that they don't spend more than 10% of their budget on anything that smacks of politics or advocacy.


The 10% rule has always left charities in the unenviable position of being able to treat the symptoms of whatever ill they are designed to address but not the cause. So a charity can give coats to needy families in the winter or send their children to camp, but they can do little, if anything, about why they are living in poverty in the first place. According to a diplomatically phrased advisory on Charity Village, "While Finance Minister Jim Flaherty stressed there are no changes to the actual rules relating to charities, there will be serious adjustments surrounding enforcement. "Quite frankly, we've had a lot of complaints and concerns expressed by Canadians that when they give money to charities they expect the money to be used for the charity's purposes, not for political or other purposes," Flaherty said Thursday. Flaherty also alleges that there is foreign money floating around too that is worrisome. Maybe this is the same money Joe Oliver was so concerned about, the gajillions of dollars being used to undermine Canadian industry.


There has been plenty reported already about charities who feel this particular $8M is directed at them because, frankly, they've been too effective at highlighting things the Cons don't want brought to our attention. David Suzuki has stepped down from the board of his own foundation because of concerns that his personal advocacy work will be counted against the Foundation. This is yet another not so subtle way of squashing dissent in this country. There's nothing like an audit to waste the time of the very limited staff at your favourite charity, get them bogged down in endless paperwork and utterly subjective evaluations of what constitutes political action and what doesn't, instead of doing the good work they are established to do.


I have a sneaking suspicion that the Cons won't be auditing the Fraser Institute (yes, it's true - you get a charitable receipt when donating to the Fraser Institute) but will more likely be auditing the Suzuki Foundation and various progressive organizations across Canada. Let's all keep an eye on what happens to all the sexual health organizations. Any guesses?

My Canada includes Women's Rights

Today I am grateful for all of the Canadian women and men who have stood up for women's rights and affirmed my right to bodily autonomy, security of the person, affirmed my right to express my own conscience and control my own destiny. Thank you to all who spoke in the House of Commons against Woodworth's regressive motion. Thank you to Niki Ashton who connected her words so eloquently to the work of her feminist fore-mothers. Thank you to Hedy Fry who managed to demonstrate the absurdity of the motion while assassinating the government's record. Thank you to Francoise Boivin for your passion. Thank you to Gordon O'Connor, Conservative Whip, who clearly stated all the failings of the motion and affirmed that Canadians do not want to go back in time. Thank you to all of you who were so eloquent and passionate.

I have always been against debating abortion. Human rights are not up for debate. But here we were, fighting the most regressive and misogynist forces in our country, debating. Although part of me wanted to block out the spectacle and wished MPs would stand in the House, refuse to speak and even turn their backs, I have to admit I watched intently and was moved by what was said. A few times, I was moved to tears. To hear my values stated in our House of Commons was powerful for me. As my American ally Charlotte Taft reminded me, we have to engage when our rights are threatened. But I'm glad I didn't waste a lot of energy "debating" the antis over the years, whose minds will never change, and had the energy to get fully involved when it counted. I've also always said, as activists, we have to be smart about where to put our energy.

This does not mean I am grateful the debate happened or that I am in any way pleased that Mr. Harper allowed it to go forward. There is no reason to put women or any group of people in a position in which they feel threatened and unsafe, in which they feel their rights may be taken away. Women my age and older often complain that young women take their rights for granted. Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't all of us? To a very large extent, we should be secure in our rights, secure in this country, secure that our government isn't plotting against us. I fault Mr. Harper for putting so many Canadians in a position where they are insecure and feeling unsafe. And it is not just women. Dissenting groups beyond Status of Women Canada feel the chill, especially environmental groups. I will continue to fight for a Canada in which progressives are heard and our agenda is mainstream.

This Motion 312 business isn't over. There will be another hour of debate, and I won't be relieved until this next incursion on our rights is voted down. But I am grateful, grateful to our MPs who spoke on our behalf and grateful to all of our allies.

Happening on the heels of the defeat of the Wildrose in Alberta, I feel doubly happy. My Canada is a Canada in which I am respected and in which I feel safe and my daughter is safe. I am grateful. I belong here.

An American Perspective on Pro-Choice Strategy for M-312

A couple of days ago, I was doing an interview with Julie Lalonde and she asked me how I would respond to people who say our activism over M-312 is over the top considering most people think it will never pass. I replied that I wondered what our American sisters would say about their early activism on personhood bills and early incursions on what has turned out to be a full scale war on women. I wondered what advice they would give us. After the interview, I decided to actually ask this question of an American ally, Charlotte Taft. Charlotte Taft is the Director of the Abortion Care Network, an organization for independent providers and abortion care allies. In her long history with reproductive justice she has been a consultant and counselor with Imagine, and was the director of Routh St. Clinic in Dallas TX.  This is what she said.

On What's Happening in the United States now:

Taft wonders why those creating all the anti-choice legislation in the US are "so intent on robbing women of any semblance of adult authority." She goes on to say, "My observation is that if the Republican Taliban has its way only corporations and fertilized eggs will be recognized as people with any rights!"

On "Relax, it will never pass":

Taft says, "'It will never pass' is a dangerous conversation. In this country all that had to happen was that a radical group (I won't call them conservatives because they are not) got elected in enough numbers in enough different states that they were able to dominate the legislative agendas. Absolutely unbelievable things have passed! I can't even keep the states straight--but we now have legislation on the books that protects from lawsuits doctors who lie to their patients about potential fetal abnormalities if the doctor thinks the woman might choose abortion. We have legislation in more than one state that currently requires clinic staffs and physicians to lie to patients about issues such as connection between abortion and breast cancer. We have had legislation passed that required any woman seeking an abortion to first be 'counseled' in an anti-abortion fake clinic. The list goes on. All of these are pieces of legislation that could never possibly have passed in the 21st century. And they did."

I read this as a clear validation of throwing everything we have at every single incursion, no matter how small, into our rights. We all have to understand that the US is a cautionary tale for us.

On Personhood Legislation:

With personhood bills passing all over the US, many of us felt that Mississipi's rejection of a personhood bill was a great win. However, Taft says, "In Mississippi the so-called 'personhood' legislation was defeated largely because a few women who were able to have children because of in vitro fertilization got very active and publicly told their stories. There was other opposition to the legislation, but I really think it was those stories that defeated the bill. In a few other states they are now putting forward similar legislation that somehow has a waiver of humanity for in vitro fertilization. That makes no sense, but it doesn't mean they might not get away with it. Apparently in this country there is no requirement for legislation to be either Constitutional or even to make a shred of sense. We have legislators arguing for anti choice legislation on the grounds that they raise livestock and this is how they deal with pregnant cows or pigs. I KID YOU NOT! I can't even choose a century that it seems we have slid into."

Again, this is good information because it indicates the lack of logic that goes into their perspective. They are doing this to end abortion, not because they are concerned about fetal personhood. If they were concerned about fetal personhood, they would be consistent. The fact that they are now trying to make exceptions to personhood so the IVF industry doesn't end reveals personhood bills for what they really are - an attack on women's rights, not a protection of the embryo/fetus.

On Nature and Biology:

Taft is always excellent on reminding us how these personhood bills fly in the face of nature itself and how personhood arguments appear ridiculous when looked at in terms of how bodies actually work. She says, "Since I've always been told that only about 40% of fertilized eggs ever implant in the wall of the uterus, it is clear that god, or nature, or biology is the greatest abortionist of them all. The personhood people have not explained whether women would have to hold monthly funerals for their sanitary products in case a corpse is residing among the cotton. Will the 17 1/2 year olds be able to vote and drink because their personhood started at conception and not birth?  You can only imagine a million more ridiculous issues that would be created. But sadly, I think in the right state it could pass."

This is said with humour, but the dark side of her comments is clear. I wonder, if Woodworth gets his way and the fetus is a person, does it get to vote? If so, does the woman incubator (because that is all she will be) get to be the vessel through which the embryo vote is expressed? Will she use her arm to mark an x on behalf of the fully personed embryo? Or will Woodworth steal the embryo vote, and count all unborn persons as votes for himself because women can't be trusted? Can embryos only vote "OfStephen"?

On the Radical Handmaids:

Taft says, "I love the Radical Handmaids!!!  We MUST have humor along with our outrage. This is a war on women--not a war with women. After all, we are unarmed!"

I always say what the anti-choice don't have is a sense of humour and they can't handle it when faced with it. Humour brings life to our activism and keeps us energized. And the hats are fabulous. 

My sincere thanks to Charlotte Taft for her words of wisdom. We can all benefit from them and feel energized to keep up this fight.

I also want to put a plug in here for Niki Ashton, whose words in the House literally brought tears to my eyes. You can see it here. (If you do not speak French, keep listening. Ashton is bilingual and her second remarks are in English.) Niki, you are a rockstar, and that CONman who responded to you was too smug for words. Clearly, Parliament is a game to him and he doesn't give a crap about the issue. As Justice Minister, you'd expect him to understand that women's rights are at stake here, but I see nothing to indicate he cares. We've all gotta know that Harper and the Harperettes approve of this motion. My fingers are crossed for today.

        

Woodworth's Misogyny

To Stephen Woodworth and your cabal of fetus fetishists. (Who are they? Check out this video at Creekside and also check out the full list of anti-choice MPs at ARCC.)

Why do you hate women? Why are you and your anachronistic patriarchal cabal trying to force your opinions up my vagina? Why are you forcing Parliament to waste time on a question that has been settled for decades? Give it up, man. It's over. If you get your way, this issue will end up in the Supreme Court and be struck down AGAIN as it has been every time it has been presented since Morgentaler.  Why is my Parliament wasting its time and my money debating a motion that is premised on the denial of women's most basic human rights, the denial of my daughter's most basic human rights, the denial of MY most basic human rights?

Why can't you see the evidence in front of your eyes, and know that denying a woman the right to an abortion only results in driving the procedure underground and bringing harm to women. Are you trying to find ways to harm us? Why do you deny the science and the surveys and the studies and the irrefutable evidence that criminalizing abortion does nothing to reduce its incidence? How can you be so blind to fact?

Why are potential people, clumps of cells no bigger than a few milimeters, more important to you than actual women?

If I can't control my body, I am not free. I will not be enslaved. I will not be enslaved to you and your failing, desperate, patriarchal, misogynist ideology of control and colonization. You don't get to decide what I do with my body. Only I get to decide that.

You would never allow another to control your body, to take away your most basic rights. But this is just women we're talking about here, so you don't care. You feel we can't be trusted. You feel you know what is best for us, that you can make blanket statements about what's right and wrong in our lives without knowing us, without knowing the intricate, intimate details of how we have to live our lives every day, balance our relationships and our budgets and our families. You think none of this matters. You think you know what's best for us. You think you can intervene in our relationship with our Gods and our consciences. You can't. You don't have the right.

When my Parliament uses its power and energy to deny my rights and the rights of half the Canadian population, I am outraged. Outraged. Why do you think it is reasonable to demand that another person give over control of their body to YOU and people who think like you? You know that petition you are sending around, the one that you're putting up in publicly funded schools and having Catholic school children sign, the one that shows a woman's pregnant belly and cuts off her head? I've got to hand it to you. The symbolism is perfect. Your petitions' graphics, let alone the content, show you don't care about women, don't care about me. You've broken that woman into parts, objectified her, made her pornographic. The woman in that picture is nothing but an incubator to you. My daughter is nothing but an incubator to you. I am nothing but an incubator to you.

Why are you obsessed with women's bodies? What is wrong with you? Why can't you go about your business and leave me alone? Don't you have better things to do? Couldn't you dedicate yourself to solving climate change (if you believe in it), or finding people jobs, or building housing for people in poverty, or making sure everyone in Canada eats tonight? No, instead, you are dedicating yourself to your woman-hating agenda. And I have to wonder, what happened to you? Did someone hurt you when you were little and ruin your sense of eroticism and any possibility you have of enjoying a healthy sexual relationship? Did someone convince you sex was a chore done only to procreate? Do you think that clinging to patriarchy is the only way you can be powerful? What happened to you that you are willing to trample the rights of women?

The patriarchy wants to control women in reproduction, always has, always will. It's the ultimate tool of oppression and coercion against women. Isn't it time to find a way to live as equals? How many more generations will we have to wait until people like you are gone?

You do not have the right to impose your values on me. I have values, and they are just as strong and important and vital to me as yours are to you. The difference between you and me is I'll never try to shove mine up another woman's vagina, or down another man's throat. Believe what you want. It's a free country, and I'm pro-choice. I support your right to believe any stupid thing you want to believe. But I'll never support your efforts to force others to abide by your twisted, erotophobic, anti-sex, misogynist, patriarchal bundle of human-rights affronting crap that your motion represents.

You are waking a sleeping giant. Women are not things for you to possess and command. You are about to find out, we are warriors.

What to Expect While You're Expecting Motion 312

Lots of people have asked me what this “Motion 312” business is about, and I realize I tend to write this blog as though everyone already knows. So here is my Motion 312 Adviser, also known as “What to Expect While You’re Expecting Motion 312.”

Background: The Big Picture - What is Motion 312?

The motion is a question raised by MP StephenWoodworth, a real piece of anti-choice work. In his motion, he asks Parliament to strike a committee to study whether or not the fetus (or in his words, “the child”) is human. His intentions with this motion are clear to all of us; he wants the fetus declared a person so that abortions will be criminalized along with any women having them. For a full discussion of all the arguments against this motion, please look at the wonderful Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) site here. To put it in a nutshell, there is one argument that moves me the most. When fetuses are persons, women are not. Two persons cannot exist in one body and both have rights. This means that if the fetus is given personhood, the woman who carries it loses personhood. Not to put too fine a point on it, the woman will be considered only in terms of her capacity as incubator.

In Canada, we may be fortunate to have the word "persons" so strongly associated with women's rights, something that is not shared by our American sisters. The Famous Five famously ensured that women in Canada were considered persons under the law, and that changed everything for us. As persons, we are entitled to everything a man is entitled to, including security of the person. Most women understand we cannot give that away.

I did an interview for a local Calgary paper about Motion 312. You can hear the audio here, if you are interested. Stephanie Grey and Wendy Lowe, also interviewed, are both anti-choicers. Listen if you feel like getting angry. (caution: trigger warning) Bruce Foster is the final interviewee. If the writer of the piece asked Bruce Foster on to balance out the perspective, it might have been nice if Foster had been a little more clear on whether he thought women had rights. Apparently, his role was to give a political perspective. But I do appreciate his point that this will go where most private members' bills go, which is nowhere, and that it will die on the order paper.

The specifics:

To understand Motion M-312and the discussion that follows, it’s probably a good idea to read it first, so here it is in full.

"That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

"that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

"that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);

"that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and

"that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

" (i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

" (ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

" (iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

" (iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

For the record, Standing Order 114(2) is about substitution of committee members.

What is the Process?

On April 26, the House will have its first hour of debate on this motion. The first speaker will have 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions and answers. The government gets the most time here, so there won’t be much time for opposing MPs to speak. So far, I understand that Francoise Boivin, Jean Crowder and Ruth-Ellen Brosseau plan to speak against motion. There may not be time for any others. We cannot, as citizens opposed to this motion, think that many opposition party members and pro-choice members will be given time to say their peace on this issue. Debate is severely limited. However, opposition party members can have 60 seconds to say something in the 15 minutes before question period every day. They could get up every day to present paper petitions, could read off names of individuals who signed the online petition, or just mention the online petition and say that it is growing every day. If you have an opposition member as your MP, it would be a good idea to ask them to raise this issue on your behalf in this short time they have available to them.

The second hour of debate will be scheduled for some time in June or perhaps September. The thinking is that if Stephen Harper is truly embarrassed by this motion, it will be pushed back. My own thought is that the outcome of the Alberta election makes a difference here. Now that the Wildrose Party (a party closely aligned with old Reformers and present day federal Conservatives) has been soundly defeated, Harper has to realize there is still massive opposition to a regressive social agenda, even in Alberta. He has to see that this motion will still alienate the vast majority of Canadians. I think that if Wildrose had won, Harper would have been more inclined to let the M-312 play out and try to appease his base. But as Bruce Foster notes in the audio interview mentioned above, Harper also knows abortion is the third rail of politics. Better to leave it alone.

After the second hour of debate, there will be a vote, and the House will decide if this “Women Can’t Be Trusted Motion” will pass, and a committee will be struck to investigate when “a child” as the motion puts it, becomes a “human being.”

Then What?

At this point, if it gets this far, it is important to take note of the membership of the committee as outlined in the motion. Membership of the committee must be established within twenty days of the committee being struck. Looking back at the text of the motion, we can see how membership will be weighted towards anti-choice Conservatives. The Vice-Chair must be from opposition, but there are anti-choice opposition members. This will be something to watch for. If an anti-choice opposition member is chosen, there is really not much hope. (addendum: April 25. The NDP caucus is unanimously opposed to M 312)  The Chair (a Conservative) will not vote unless there is a tie, but again we can assume the chair will be anti-choice. It is quite reasonable to challenge the validity of this committee because of the bias inherent in its membership.

How will we know what the committee is doing?

In the past, committee proceedings were often public, and sometimes even broadcast on CPAC, and committee proceedings get put on the web. However, these days, increasingly, committees meet “in-camera,” which is interesting considering the Conservatives claim to be all about transparency.

Further, it is highly likely that people who speak to the committee will only be allowed to speak on the motion itself. The motion is carefully worded to exclude any mention of the woman carrying the fetus. For example, the questions ask the legal impact on “the child” and its human rights, but not on the woman and hers. Also, it asks only about medical evidence. There is no debate about whether medically, the fetus is human. It has human DNA. Case closed. The real question in terms of abortion is if the fetus is a person in legal terms. These are two significantly different issues, and Motion 312 only deals with the first. In other words, the Committee can deny witnesses who wish to speak about the legal issues, because it’s not part of the motion. Witnesses may only be permitted to speak to what medically identifies the fetus as human.

Also, we have no way of knowing who will be called to speak at the committee and give evidence. Again, this evidence will likely be limited to the motion itself, and witnesses who wish to speak about the woman carrying the pregnancy or the legal aspects of personhood may be excluded. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely the committee will find anything they don’t want to find.

Pro-Choice advocates will definitely not speak to the motion if they don’t ask to speak, so it is important that we do ask to submit briefs anyway, even if we expect our requests to be denied. The process for doing so is outlined here. Although I would like to agree with my optimistic fellow blogger at “Fat and Not Afraid” that pro-choice voices will be heard, I am less optimistic. I think this committee, if it is struck, is not going to be transparent and won’t hear the excellent arguments put forward against the motion by allies like ARCC.

To understand what happens to Motion 312 after the committee finishes its "work" and presents its findings, it is probably most instructive to look at the anti-choice’s perspective outlined on this website. (caution: another trigger warning.) If you don't want to go there, which I totally understand, ARCC summarizes their plan in this way. The anti-choice will "bring forward the biology of fetal development as 'scientific evidence' that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are human beings from conception and deserve legal protection. However, this would subordinate women to their fetuses and eliminate many rights and legal protections for pregnant women."

I hope this brings some clarity to the process and explains the myriad reasons for concern. Again, there is plenty of action in the coming days against this motion. Get involved however you can, and don't worry that you have blown it if you don't have something ready for the 26th. All of our actions must continue throughout this process, and certainly to the second hour of debate.

-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an ebook on Smashwords and through Kindle, Kobo, iBooks or any of your other favourite formats. There are a very few paper copies left for sale, which can be purchased by going back to the website. This will be the last print run.

My faith in humanity is restored

Wow. Sigh of relief. Never in a million years would I have thought I'd be clapping/singing/dancing happy over a PC majority. But I am. My faith in humanity is restored, particularly my faith in Albertans.

It's not all good news. The barbarians are past the gate, and they have 17 seats in the legislature now.  I'll be watching one in particular, our old nemesis Link Byfield. I'm thinking of implementing a Missing Link Watch on the site, (knuckle dragging graphics TBA) but I also threatened to do that once with anti-choice MP Trost and nothing came of it. Too boring.

My most sincere and heartfelt thanks to all the bloggers out there who exposed the truth. Also, my most sincere and heartfelt thanks to all the readers who know that social media is independent media.

I'm going to go have my first good night's sleep in weeks. Tomorrow, I'll be blogging about M-312. Stay tuned for What to Expect When You're Expecting M-312.

Until then, breathe easy Alberta.

Yours,
Some Blogger.

Think Twice, Vote Once

People say when you vote, you exercise your power. I see it slightly differently. I think when you vote, you give away a piece of your power. You decide who to give it to, and that is a bit of power. But the person you vote for gets to wield your power for much longer than the few minutes you are behind the cardboard, marking your "x." I'd like to say the person you vote for will use this new power you've given them on your behalf, but that's not always true. That's why you have to try hard to understand who you are giving this piece of yourself to. You have to make sure they will use it in a way that represents you, in a way you would use it if you still had it.

There's this book I really like called "Bowling Alone" by Robert D. Putnam. It explains social change in America and the collapse of community and how in the past, people used to belong to organizations in the community, the PTA, and bowling leagues, organizations that knitted together our social fabric. To completely simplify Putnam's gorgeous argument, this doesn't happen as much anymore. Now we're bowling alone with our Wii in the basement. We're not connected. And when we're not connected, we start thinking more about our own individual needs and less about the needs of our neighbours. In this circumstance, it is no wonder that libertarian ideals creep insidiously into our governments. I enjoyed the book when Putnam was talking about the United States. I could observe the argument with the cool logic that distance provides. Now it's personal. Now it's about where I live, about my home. Now I'm sitting with the book in my hands reading it in a new way.

I keep saying, Albertans want change, but is Wildrose the change they really want? I can't believe the polls. I thought I was living in a place where people cared about each other, where human rights were respected, where homophobia and racism and other plagues of ignorance were, for the most part, in the past. Occasional outbursts were becoming fewer and farther between. I feel disappointed and disheartened. I feel I have been out of step, living in an idea of community that was only that - an idea. The Alberta I thought I lived in, the one that was moving forward, seems to be a myth.

It's been tempting for me to walk to the solitary Wildrose sign in my immediate vicinity, knock on the door and say, "Really? Explain your thinking to me," and try to engage in a discussion. This is how convinced I am that my neighbours share a commitment to and deep respect for their fellow Albertans. I haven't done it yet. I'm glad because today I talked to their next door neighbour who was raking her yard in this beautiful sunshine and, of course, we started talking about the election. She tilted her head towards the neighbour's yard and their Wildrose sign and said, "I should have known they'd be Wildrosers. When they moved in, we were having work done on the foundation and she said, 'Who is the wop doing your work?' I didn't even know her name yet and she's using words like wop with me. They're a lost cause." Good to know. But still, in other neighbourhoods where Wildrose signs are more plentiful, I find it hard to believe that all those people behind all those front doors are true believers in the firewall, use words I haven't heard since Archie Bunker, and would like to see gay people burn in the lake of fire. But tomorrow I will have to face reality. Either this province is the place I thought it was, or it's not.

A few days ago at my local coffee shop, the owner asked "What's the word?" as he always does. It's his catch phrase. I said, "Apparently, it's okay to be a climate change denier again." He laughed out loud, but then looked around nervously. He doesn't want to piss off any customers. Once he saw the coast was clear, he said, "I can't believe this is happening." We commiserated. Someone else piped in and said, "At this point, Danielle Smith could be an axe-murderer, and voters would say the victim probably deserved it." I have another friend who joked that since Danielle Smith says that climate change isn't real, the rising temperature must be caused by all the gays burning in the lake of fire. It's not funny so much as it is sad that in 2011, someone is giving us material for jokes like this. (If you want some good ones, go on twitter and search the #wildroserumours. Hilarious. Pathetic. Scary. Disappointing.) If they win, we'll be giving John Stewart material for years.

Think hard about who you are giving your power to, who you are giving your vote to. I know if you're reading this blog, you are not inclined to vote Wildrose anyway. Make it your business to change a mind today.

For the record, here are Daveberta's endorsements. I'm lucky to live in one of the ridings he mentions.  For the rest of you, think twice because you only get to vote once.