Here's an excellent blog post about Link Byfield, and some of the other Wildrose candidates who have hit the news lately. Link Byfield's history has not been fully exhumed yet as it has here, (maybe this is the "Missing Link" - sorry, couldn't resist) and this is worth the read. Please, pass it around, and thanks to A. Picazo for doing the work. Picazo mentions the internet has been "cleansed" of much information about Byfield. Yup. I've seen this myself about a few other issues I've investigated during this election and it scares me. That's why it's so important that independent bloggers and writers dig this stuff up and keep the history known and knowable. So, thanks A. Picazo. You've done us all a great service.
Showing posts with label alberta election 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alberta election 2012. Show all posts
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Alberta's Choice
Let's face it. Wildrose, a party billing itself as "change" in Alberta, does not represent change at all. With the most regressive members of the Progressive Conservatives among its ranks (with the notable exception of Ted Morton, who remains an albatross for the PCs) they can hardly make the claim that they will bring change. This is a place for Conservatives who don't think the Progressive Conservatives are conservative enough. The PCs, on the other hand, are also looking to capture the change narrative with the new Alison Redford broom sweeping clean. But they are still the PCs. As a new website points out through the use of a fun quiz (I do love a good quiz)they really are not that much different than their disaffected country cousins in the Wildrose. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, as my mother always says.
Or are the PCs and Wildrose incredibly different? Can Alison Redford lead the party to a truly progressive vision of conservatism? If anyone can, it is probably her. One thing we do know is how the PCs have dealt with their own members who make the kinds of crazy statements noted in the quiz above. They've never let them get the upper hand. That's something. Not much, but something. Redford has specifically reached out to a more progressive voter, both in her leadership campaign and now in the election campaign. I don't think it's purely a crass grab at power. I think she knows she needs progressives on the inside to sway her party. Wildrose, on the other hand, is reaching out to the least progressive voters. That is a significant difference.
But having said that, I think it is naive for the progressive voter to expect that because we voted PC that the party will suddenly reflect our core values. Change like that doesn't happen in an election period or a year or even a term.
I just saw this video urging for strategic voting that kind of made me laugh and kind of made me sad. To be fair, Smith doesn't think the Flintstones is real, (I don't think) but the fact that this kind of rhetoric is part of our election makes me so disheartened I want to crawl under my bed. This is where the Wildrose perspective has brought us. And I understand the point the strategic voters are making.
So, how to vote? Look at your local candidate? Good idea. What does she or he believe? Is he or she a Hunsperger or a Leech? Try not to make eye contact and back away. You have to do some asking around, some digging. There is still time.
How about looking at the leaders? Good idea too. The leaders in this day and age really do set the agenda. Once in power, unfortunately, our local representatives are expected to tow the party line. That's the price of being in a party. We've seen enough of the leaders in this campaign to help us decide.
Here are two different takes on strategic voting, one from Daveberta who points out that we are also voting for the opposition in the upcoming election. Do we want a right wing party as opposition to a righter wing party? Or do we want a progressive counter balance? Good question, Dave. And then there is the other Dave, Dave Climenhaga, an unabashed ND calling for an ND vote. He makes some good points. Don't forget to visit Change Alberta too, and see what their take on your riding is.
I'm still on the anybody but Wildrose bandwagon. Hope to see you there on the 23rd.
I just noticed a charming blogger misnamed my blog on her charming post about Alberta Politics and called this space "The Alberta Monologues." And oh, so it has become. Sorry to my regular readers. I'll get on track again soon.
----
The Abortion Monologues is available in e-book format at Smashwords and on Kindle, Kobo, iBooks and any of your other favourites.
Or are the PCs and Wildrose incredibly different? Can Alison Redford lead the party to a truly progressive vision of conservatism? If anyone can, it is probably her. One thing we do know is how the PCs have dealt with their own members who make the kinds of crazy statements noted in the quiz above. They've never let them get the upper hand. That's something. Not much, but something. Redford has specifically reached out to a more progressive voter, both in her leadership campaign and now in the election campaign. I don't think it's purely a crass grab at power. I think she knows she needs progressives on the inside to sway her party. Wildrose, on the other hand, is reaching out to the least progressive voters. That is a significant difference.
But having said that, I think it is naive for the progressive voter to expect that because we voted PC that the party will suddenly reflect our core values. Change like that doesn't happen in an election period or a year or even a term.
I just saw this video urging for strategic voting that kind of made me laugh and kind of made me sad. To be fair, Smith doesn't think the Flintstones is real, (I don't think) but the fact that this kind of rhetoric is part of our election makes me so disheartened I want to crawl under my bed. This is where the Wildrose perspective has brought us. And I understand the point the strategic voters are making.
So, how to vote? Look at your local candidate? Good idea. What does she or he believe? Is he or she a Hunsperger or a Leech? Try not to make eye contact and back away. You have to do some asking around, some digging. There is still time.
How about looking at the leaders? Good idea too. The leaders in this day and age really do set the agenda. Once in power, unfortunately, our local representatives are expected to tow the party line. That's the price of being in a party. We've seen enough of the leaders in this campaign to help us decide.
Here are two different takes on strategic voting, one from Daveberta who points out that we are also voting for the opposition in the upcoming election. Do we want a right wing party as opposition to a righter wing party? Or do we want a progressive counter balance? Good question, Dave. And then there is the other Dave, Dave Climenhaga, an unabashed ND calling for an ND vote. He makes some good points. Don't forget to visit Change Alberta too, and see what their take on your riding is.
I'm still on the anybody but Wildrose bandwagon. Hope to see you there on the 23rd.
I just noticed a charming blogger misnamed my blog on her charming post about Alberta Politics and called this space "The Alberta Monologues." And oh, so it has become. Sorry to my regular readers. I'll get on track again soon.
----
The Abortion Monologues is available in e-book format at Smashwords and on Kindle, Kobo, iBooks and any of your other favourites.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Wildrose canvasser reported saying, "You can't kill government from the outside"
Since blogging about the Wildrose position on abortion and conscience rights and writing the three part history of Danielle Smith's disastrous ten months on the Calgary School Board, I have received many notes from people who remember that time and want to share their memories, and also from a few who have deep concerns about Wildrose. This little note came in yesterday:
"Two folks from Wildrose came to the door a couple of days
ago, door knocking.
I was about to go out so couldn't chat to them, but wish I
had had time. I did say that I didn't think anyone who is Libertarian has any
business in government, too cognitively dissonant to be believed. His answer
was, 'You can't kill government from the outside.' Pretty
succinct."
And pretty scary.
Nice that someone finally stated the goal of Wildrose so clearly.
Smith's stint on the Calgary Board of Education Board of Trustees can in no way be construed as a time that was constructive for public education. I've got to say, her comments on education in last night's leaders debate made my blood boil. I wanted someone to say, "If you care about public school so much, explain your record as a public school Trustee, a record that was so lousy, you got canned." But no one did. Redford almost got the chance. Smith was busy explaining her experience, or lack thereof, and Redford mentioned the School Board. Unfortunately, time was up and she couldn't continue. I always thought Smith's actions indicated she wanted to kill public education, not help it.
Now we have her supporters going door to door saying "You can't kill government from the outside."
What else does anyone need to know?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Smith's Risky History (Part 3) Government Smith Style
This is the third of a three part series about Danielle Smith’s history as a
School Board Trustee. This one has the least to do with reproductive rights
and is completely off the regular topic of this blog, but in terms of the Alberta Provincial Election, it is probably the most vital.
It’s about governance. I can already feel you glazing over.
An issue like conscience rights is something people can wrap their heads around and something they care about with passion. An issue like abortion is like an explosion. Abortion is what I call a “deaf” word, like cancer. People hear it and they go deaf. Although my original questions to all the parties were about abortion, the response from Wildrose made the issue much bigger. It became about using referenda to decide social issues. It became about democracy. It became about governance.
As in my other two posts, Smith’s disastrous history on the School Board gives us some vital information about her. This history matters. On to Part Three.
Part Three: Government Smith Style
As everyone knows, Smith’s only elected political experience is her ten months on the School Board.
I have often wondered why Smith never spoke out against the government's decision to dismiss a democratically elected board. I can't find any evidence of it in the media, and I don't remember her speaking out at the time. For someone saying she's all about democratic rights, it makes me wonder about her definition of democracy, just like I wonder about her definition of pro-choice and pro-gay. Maybe this is another thing she talks a good line on but does nothing about. Other Trustees vilified the government and called the tactic anti-democratic. If the public elected the Board, and the public was sick of them, the public should have been given the opportunity to get rid of them in the next election. Or better yet, someone on the Board could have shown some leadership and found a way through the divisions. No one did. The Chair at the time did not. Smith certainly did not. She was obstructionist, to say the least. I'm not interested in what blame is to be shared among the other Trustees. Smith is the only one of them vying to lead the province right now. Instead of showing leadership, instead of being productive and moving public education forward, she helped tear it apart in Calgary. Having Big Daddy Oberg come in and send the bad girls to their rooms was something almost everyone had an opinion about. Yet, when it happened, Smith was quiet. So was Anderson. Smith did not speak up for democracy.
[addendum April 15. After everyone was fired, Alberta Report said that Lyle Oberg had asked Smith and Anderson to run again which would seem to indicate they were in agreement on many things. Today, Oberg is a key advisor of Smith's, and Oberg just opened a five star private hospital in BC. Neither has a commitment to keeping public education or public health care public.]
The operating budget of the CBE back then was roughly $700,000. That’s not much compared to the provincial budget. And Smith wasn’t keen on getting into the details of it. As I mentioned in Part Two, Jennifer Pollock confirms that Smith and Peggy Anderson took a political stance not to participate in budget meetings. This was part of a broader philosophy about governance and what they felt the role of a Trustee was. Again this tells us something about Smith's style of governing. As a Libertarian, Smith believes there should be less government. Anything that makes less government is justifiable in and of itself. This would include non-participation in budget processes. As a Libertarian, she can say she believes anything. She says she is pro-choice, (See Part One for questions about that) but government shouldn't pay for abortion. But the thing is, Libertarians don't believe government should pay for anything. They don't like taxation. Leave it all to the individual.
In these circumstances, what would happen to public school?
Smith was an enthusiastic supporter of something called the “Carver Model” of governance. (Again, I feel your eyes glazing over, but try to stick with me. I’m getting to the point, honestly.) Right after I was elected, the new Trustees were sent to a weekend of presentations on "How to be a Trustee." I was happy at the time to have any guidance at all. I didn’t know until later it was an indoctrination into how administration wanted us to behave and the Carver Model. I soon learned the job really wasn't what I thought it was, or what it had ever been in the past. It had changed. I thought I had been elected to represent constituents on matters of public education. With the Board moving to the Carver model, I was wrong.
Under Carver, the Board creates policies and something called “Ends statements” that say what the goals of the organization are, but stays out of the details of how to get there. You can see why administrators would approve of this model. They have no elected representatives looking at the gory details of how they do things, the gory details like budget line items. As long as they work within broadly defined policy and meet the Ends Statements, it’s all good.
The Carver model was not designed for use with an elected political body. (I feel you yawning, try to stay with me. This is the part that matters.) It needed to be creatively adapted so that the Board could still do its job as elected officials and achieve goals Smith and others wanted, like less micro-managing by Trustees, a goal that I shared in some respects. We have to trust, to some extent, that administrators know what they are doing. But this has to be balanced against having enough knowledge and input to be accountable to constituents, both in reporting back to them and carrying out their will. Smith was against any kind of creative adaptation to this model and wanted it used in its most orthodox way.
It might be hard to believe, but this topic was a hot one among Trustees, and could not have been more boring, less understood, or less cared about by Calgarians. I had no idea when I became a Trustee that I would be spending my time on implementing this new governance model. But the adoption of the Carver model changed everything about the way the board worked and how it related to both CBE administration and citizens. What has never been made clear to citizens, even to this day, is that Trustees don't function anymore as representatives of their constituents. They are not someone parents can call and get help from beyond the Trustees acting as receptionists and referring calls to the appropriate administrative person. I think that the adoption of the Carver model is the reason that now, the Trustees have handed over financial decision making power to Administration and try to limit public input on the school system.
And this is how Smith wanted it. As we all know, the devil is in the details, and most of us looking at a fiasco like the “no meet committee” would agree that the person in charge should have had an eye on that. It’s pretty hard to be accountable to the electorate otherwise. I have never met a person who does not think their elected representative should be accountable to them. This is an issue that goes to the heart of the nature of democracy.
Smith says she wanted to join the CBE board of Trustees in part because she felt the Board had been unresponsive to parents. Yet, she was solidly behind a governance model that could only result in less responsiveness. In the article by Maurice Tougas about Smith’s leadership potential mentioned in Part One, Pollock notes that Smith has a history, one that I can personally vouch for, of not showing any interest in constituent issues she didn't agree with. A lot of people lost faith in the capacity of the School Board to represent them. And once that happens, people start to ask why we even have one. That can only help Libertarians achieve less government.
In the Tougas article, Pollock says that, “Smith went her own way as a trustee.” Smith took “the unusual stand of advocating school closings, suggesting up to 30 schools should be closed.” Danielle Smith and I have met only once that I remember, and I'm sure she wouldn't remember it. It was while she was a Trustee. She was visiting my daughter's elementary school, one of the 30 schools she wanted to close. The other parents and I joked that she walked around it with the eyes of a real estate agent. Remember, Smith had also run on her support for charter schools. In Calgary, closed public schools often get leased to charter schools and sometimes private schools. It's a pretty good deal for them. I've never been convinced it's a good deal for public schools. Finding buildings is a pretty significant way to support Charter Schools. If she was talking to parents, she wasn't talking to us about saving our school.
I quit my job as Trustee a few months before the end of my term, stressed out and ill, disillusioned and disappointed at everything I had learned while I was there. I was often alone in my opinions, but the divisions among Board members when I was there never came close to what happened on the Board Smith was part of. We were divided, but civil. I quit when I realized my job was not to be the representative of the people who elected me, even though they thought it was. I quit when I realized I could no longer support what the Board was doing. My job was to be the yes-woman, and I couldn't do it anymore. I felt like a hypocrite. I couldn’t pretend I was a representative of my constituents when the board had basically eliminated any capacity for that, as far as I was concerned. I couldn’t pretend that what I was doing had anything to do with democracy. I was criticized for my decision, but not by many. Most people understood. I made sure my resignation was close enough to the next election that it wouldn't trigger a by-election. I didn't want it to cost the taxpayers money. And I also knew that there was not a single vote result between my departure and the end of the term for this Board that would have been altered by my presence. By that time, votes were generally going 5-2 or 6-1. The school closure issue was finished and we were moving into summer. To me, what would have been worse for Calgary Public was another divisive, bickering board. I wouldn't be that person. Calgary didn't need that again. Sometimes it's better to walk away.
That’s the end of this series. I hope you found it instructive. I've told this story from my perspective and the interpretations I've given are mine alone. I wish I could find my freaking glasses. Sorry about any typos. Apparently I've called Daveberta a bogger instead of a blogger. Sorry Dave. At least I didn't call him a bugger. I correct my mistakes when I find them. In other words, no one's perfect. I don't expect anyone, elected or otherwise, to be perfect. I do expect some integrity. I just want everyone to understand the history of this school board so they can decide for themselves if Wildrose represents their values, and if they think Ms Smith can represent them well. Like I've said, if the best indicator of future performance is past performance, everyone is entitled to know what I know. Blogs can be useful for that.
Part One is here
Part Two is here
-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book on Smashwords
An issue like conscience rights is something people can wrap their heads around and something they care about with passion. An issue like abortion is like an explosion. Abortion is what I call a “deaf” word, like cancer. People hear it and they go deaf. Although my original questions to all the parties were about abortion, the response from Wildrose made the issue much bigger. It became about using referenda to decide social issues. It became about democracy. It became about governance.
As in my other two posts, Smith’s disastrous history on the School Board gives us some vital information about her. This history matters. On to Part Three.
Part Three: Government Smith Style
As everyone knows, Smith’s only elected political experience is her ten months on the School Board.
I have often wondered why Smith never spoke out against the government's decision to dismiss a democratically elected board. I can't find any evidence of it in the media, and I don't remember her speaking out at the time. For someone saying she's all about democratic rights, it makes me wonder about her definition of democracy, just like I wonder about her definition of pro-choice and pro-gay. Maybe this is another thing she talks a good line on but does nothing about. Other Trustees vilified the government and called the tactic anti-democratic. If the public elected the Board, and the public was sick of them, the public should have been given the opportunity to get rid of them in the next election. Or better yet, someone on the Board could have shown some leadership and found a way through the divisions. No one did. The Chair at the time did not. Smith certainly did not. She was obstructionist, to say the least. I'm not interested in what blame is to be shared among the other Trustees. Smith is the only one of them vying to lead the province right now. Instead of showing leadership, instead of being productive and moving public education forward, she helped tear it apart in Calgary. Having Big Daddy Oberg come in and send the bad girls to their rooms was something almost everyone had an opinion about. Yet, when it happened, Smith was quiet. So was Anderson. Smith did not speak up for democracy.
[addendum April 15. After everyone was fired, Alberta Report said that Lyle Oberg had asked Smith and Anderson to run again which would seem to indicate they were in agreement on many things. Today, Oberg is a key advisor of Smith's, and Oberg just opened a five star private hospital in BC. Neither has a commitment to keeping public education or public health care public.]
The operating budget of the CBE back then was roughly $700,000. That’s not much compared to the provincial budget. And Smith wasn’t keen on getting into the details of it. As I mentioned in Part Two, Jennifer Pollock confirms that Smith and Peggy Anderson took a political stance not to participate in budget meetings. This was part of a broader philosophy about governance and what they felt the role of a Trustee was. Again this tells us something about Smith's style of governing. As a Libertarian, Smith believes there should be less government. Anything that makes less government is justifiable in and of itself. This would include non-participation in budget processes. As a Libertarian, she can say she believes anything. She says she is pro-choice, (See Part One for questions about that) but government shouldn't pay for abortion. But the thing is, Libertarians don't believe government should pay for anything. They don't like taxation. Leave it all to the individual.
In these circumstances, what would happen to public school?
Smith was an enthusiastic supporter of something called the “Carver Model” of governance. (Again, I feel your eyes glazing over, but try to stick with me. I’m getting to the point, honestly.) Right after I was elected, the new Trustees were sent to a weekend of presentations on "How to be a Trustee." I was happy at the time to have any guidance at all. I didn’t know until later it was an indoctrination into how administration wanted us to behave and the Carver Model. I soon learned the job really wasn't what I thought it was, or what it had ever been in the past. It had changed. I thought I had been elected to represent constituents on matters of public education. With the Board moving to the Carver model, I was wrong.
Under Carver, the Board creates policies and something called “Ends statements” that say what the goals of the organization are, but stays out of the details of how to get there. You can see why administrators would approve of this model. They have no elected representatives looking at the gory details of how they do things, the gory details like budget line items. As long as they work within broadly defined policy and meet the Ends Statements, it’s all good.
The Carver model was not designed for use with an elected political body. (I feel you yawning, try to stay with me. This is the part that matters.) It needed to be creatively adapted so that the Board could still do its job as elected officials and achieve goals Smith and others wanted, like less micro-managing by Trustees, a goal that I shared in some respects. We have to trust, to some extent, that administrators know what they are doing. But this has to be balanced against having enough knowledge and input to be accountable to constituents, both in reporting back to them and carrying out their will. Smith was against any kind of creative adaptation to this model and wanted it used in its most orthodox way.
It might be hard to believe, but this topic was a hot one among Trustees, and could not have been more boring, less understood, or less cared about by Calgarians. I had no idea when I became a Trustee that I would be spending my time on implementing this new governance model. But the adoption of the Carver model changed everything about the way the board worked and how it related to both CBE administration and citizens. What has never been made clear to citizens, even to this day, is that Trustees don't function anymore as representatives of their constituents. They are not someone parents can call and get help from beyond the Trustees acting as receptionists and referring calls to the appropriate administrative person. I think that the adoption of the Carver model is the reason that now, the Trustees have handed over financial decision making power to Administration and try to limit public input on the school system.
And this is how Smith wanted it. As we all know, the devil is in the details, and most of us looking at a fiasco like the “no meet committee” would agree that the person in charge should have had an eye on that. It’s pretty hard to be accountable to the electorate otherwise. I have never met a person who does not think their elected representative should be accountable to them. This is an issue that goes to the heart of the nature of democracy.
Smith says she wanted to join the CBE board of Trustees in part because she felt the Board had been unresponsive to parents. Yet, she was solidly behind a governance model that could only result in less responsiveness. In the article by Maurice Tougas about Smith’s leadership potential mentioned in Part One, Pollock notes that Smith has a history, one that I can personally vouch for, of not showing any interest in constituent issues she didn't agree with. A lot of people lost faith in the capacity of the School Board to represent them. And once that happens, people start to ask why we even have one. That can only help Libertarians achieve less government.
In the Tougas article, Pollock says that, “Smith went her own way as a trustee.” Smith took “the unusual stand of advocating school closings, suggesting up to 30 schools should be closed.” Danielle Smith and I have met only once that I remember, and I'm sure she wouldn't remember it. It was while she was a Trustee. She was visiting my daughter's elementary school, one of the 30 schools she wanted to close. The other parents and I joked that she walked around it with the eyes of a real estate agent. Remember, Smith had also run on her support for charter schools. In Calgary, closed public schools often get leased to charter schools and sometimes private schools. It's a pretty good deal for them. I've never been convinced it's a good deal for public schools. Finding buildings is a pretty significant way to support Charter Schools. If she was talking to parents, she wasn't talking to us about saving our school.
I quit my job as Trustee a few months before the end of my term, stressed out and ill, disillusioned and disappointed at everything I had learned while I was there. I was often alone in my opinions, but the divisions among Board members when I was there never came close to what happened on the Board Smith was part of. We were divided, but civil. I quit when I realized my job was not to be the representative of the people who elected me, even though they thought it was. I quit when I realized I could no longer support what the Board was doing. My job was to be the yes-woman, and I couldn't do it anymore. I felt like a hypocrite. I couldn’t pretend I was a representative of my constituents when the board had basically eliminated any capacity for that, as far as I was concerned. I couldn’t pretend that what I was doing had anything to do with democracy. I was criticized for my decision, but not by many. Most people understood. I made sure my resignation was close enough to the next election that it wouldn't trigger a by-election. I didn't want it to cost the taxpayers money. And I also knew that there was not a single vote result between my departure and the end of the term for this Board that would have been altered by my presence. By that time, votes were generally going 5-2 or 6-1. The school closure issue was finished and we were moving into summer. To me, what would have been worse for Calgary Public was another divisive, bickering board. I wouldn't be that person. Calgary didn't need that again. Sometimes it's better to walk away.
That’s the end of this series. I hope you found it instructive. I've told this story from my perspective and the interpretations I've given are mine alone. I wish I could find my freaking glasses. Sorry about any typos. Apparently I've called Daveberta a bogger instead of a blogger. Sorry Dave. At least I didn't call him a bugger. I correct my mistakes when I find them. In other words, no one's perfect. I don't expect anyone, elected or otherwise, to be perfect. I do expect some integrity. I just want everyone to understand the history of this school board so they can decide for themselves if Wildrose represents their values, and if they think Ms Smith can represent them well. Like I've said, if the best indicator of future performance is past performance, everyone is entitled to know what I know. Blogs can be useful for that.
Part One is here
Part Two is here
-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book on Smashwords
Danielle Smith's Risky History (Part 2) Narrative of Persecution
This is Part Two of Smith's Risky History - Part One is Here
As I said in Part One, I was the School Board Trustee for Wards 6 and 7 after Ms Smith. Since the best indicator of future performance is past performance, we need to look at her past as a Trustee.
One of the things I've been blogging about lately is how Smith likes to blame liberal conspiracies for any dissent against her. It's interesting to note her language. She has blamed "eastern Canadian critics" (read liberals) for her troubles, attacking her opponents for doing their best to protect reproductive rights and gay rights, while she herself says she's pro-choice and pro-gay rights. On the one hand, Smith claims philosophical alignment with pro-choice and pro-gay rights folks, and on the other, she blames them for trying to bring her down.
Something doesn't add up. A person who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights doesn't propose or encourage strategies that will harm reproductive rights and gay rights. As Part One makes clear, there's nothing in her history to characterize her as a progressive on these issues except her statement at last night's forum. If there were, the media would have printed it when the stories broke. Progressives with some credibility as progressives understand her "fauxgressive" rhetoric. I think her party knows exactly who she is - someone who can appear moderate compared to the rest of them and won't lift a finger to stop their regressive agenda. Now, on to Part Two.
Part Two: Smith's Narrative of Persecution
Smith's tendency to demonize her critics and portray herself as persecuted was clear while she was a Trustee and continues today.
Here's one example from the School Board days. While on the Board, Smith and Peggy Anderson had their poor attendance reported to the government by a constituent, Donn Lovett. Lovett wanted them removed from the Board in accordance with the School Act. Smith claimed that the daytime budget meetings conflicted with her day job and suggested the scheduling of those meetings was done just so it would be impossible for her to attend. Jennifer Pollock, a Trustee at the time, confirms that Smith and Anderson had a political stance against attending budget meetings. They didn't think the elected board should have anything to do with the details of the budget, except to write general policy or guidelines. (I'll talk more about this in part three, when I talk about Smith's record on governance.) Smith and Anderson said trustees Jennifer Pollock, Liz LoVecchio and Judy Tilston had put Lovett up to the letter. Lovett responded, "Nobody needs to tell me to do anything." (See this source and Daveberta again.) [Addendum April 13, 2012: I've just been able to confirm with Donn Lovett that Smith initiated a law suit against him as a result of this incident.]
More recently, when opposition to the idea of “conscience rights” arose and a former supporter publicly bailed on Wildrose as a result, Wildrose started saying it was a plot against them by a liberals. Their former supporter was labelled a conservative mole. Like Lovett, she affirmed that she acted independently. (As do I, by the way.) Smith and Wildrose deny that their opponents might have brains of our own. To them, we are all puppets on a conspiratorial string.
Here's another example. Smith was well known as the subject of some legendary "mean girl" note passing during school board meetings, a situation widely believed to be the final straw for a frustrated public and the catalyst for the Board's removal. Smith released the notes to the media, and has since called this "good opposition research." She is obviously proud of her work here. Although she denies she retrieved the notes from the garbage, other trustees said that was the only place she could have found them. The point here is that Smith made it an issue, found the notes and made them public. She wanted those notes in the media. The media in turn were delighted to outline all the details of who said what about who's hair and someone's ugly suit. (See Daveberta's blog for excruciating detail on the whole note passing fiasco.)
In this campaign, Wildrose used another "mean girl" comment and made hay out of it. The Globe and Mail reported that Wildrose had used the ridiculous tweet about Smith's family life and childless status so that it played strongly in Smith's favour. At first, media was ignoring the tweet, because it was completely insignificant. Anyone who's ever been on Twitter knows it's full of crap like this. After being unable to light a fire under the tweet, Wildrose sent out a press release just to make sure everyone knew. They wanted it to be an issue. Yes, the tweet was ridiculous and insulting and the woman who tweeted it was idiotic and was dealt with. Similarly, yes, the notes were ridiculous and petty and all involved were publicly shamed. But Smith sure made the most of both of these situations to draw attention to herself. Even I felt sorry for her after the idiotic tweet. What a woman wants to do about a family is no one's business. I'm pro-choice. But I never would have known someone took a pot shot at her unless her people had spent so much time making sure I did. After I learned that, my sympathy evaporated. It reminded me too much of the "mean girl" note incident.
What’s interesting to me is that the "mean girl" notes about bad hair and the recent tweet are genuinely petty compared to saying you’ll put “issues like abortion” to citizen initiated referendum and enact conscience rights that override human rights. But it is this abortion issue and this conscience rights issue that Smith portrays as frivolous. Again, as the Globe and Mail notes, Smith says it's all liberal lies, electioneering and those darned easterners are behind it. (For the record, I'm from Toronto and moved to Calgary in 1988. In Smith's world, that fact alone would seem to be enough to dismiss my concerns about her policies.) If, as Smith says, “It’s typical of liberal politicians to demonize a conservative party using fear-mongering,” it is just as typical for Smith to demonize progressives and use their well-founded concerns to portray herself as hard done by and misrepresented.
This week, journalists are finding out just how little negative opinion Smith and the Wildrose are willing to brook. Another article in the Globe and Mail says that journalists who aren't towing the Wildrose Party line are being rebutted. But Wildrose is not just rebutting what they find to be errors in facts; they are rebutting so-called errors of opinion. They are coming down on people who merely disagree with them. This is all sounding very Stephen Harper to me. When Harper first got into power, he de-funded Status of Women Canada the Court Challenges Program, certainly both venues for dissenters. I could write a book about how Stephen Harper has quelled dissent, and right now the last chapter would be about CBC cuts.
As I've said before, the very idea that Conservatives are the subject of liberal media persecution is hard to buy when you remember that Smith used to work for the Calgary Herald, has had more than enough presence in media in both print and television, and that her husband is an executive with Sun Media. The media is biased? Really? In what direction? Does Smith really want to open up that can of worms?
I don't want a Provincial leader who cries persecution anytime anyone disagrees with them, or a leader who dismisses and derides dissent. And I sure don't want a leader who is going to pick a fight with the rest of Canada. I get a sense that Wildrose could start another persecution narrative, the old one where Alberta is hard done by within Canada. It's already started. Wildrose policy has enough in it to show us how a Wildrose government will relate to the rest of Canada. Wildrose is bothered by the fact that Albertans give more in transfer payments than we get. Oh poor Alberta. No reason for us to help out our neighbours. Libertarians leave that kind of stuff to individuals, remember? Wildrose policy suggests Alberta get its own immigration policy, opt out of Canada Pension in favour of our own, and that Alberta reject any federal legislation that might come to bear on our industry (read environmental rules). If Quebec were saying some of what's in the Wildrose policy book, the word "separatist" would surely arise. Someone else can blog about that.
Part Three: Government Smith Style
-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book on Smashwords
As I said in Part One, I was the School Board Trustee for Wards 6 and 7 after Ms Smith. Since the best indicator of future performance is past performance, we need to look at her past as a Trustee.
One of the things I've been blogging about lately is how Smith likes to blame liberal conspiracies for any dissent against her. It's interesting to note her language. She has blamed "eastern Canadian critics" (read liberals) for her troubles, attacking her opponents for doing their best to protect reproductive rights and gay rights, while she herself says she's pro-choice and pro-gay rights. On the one hand, Smith claims philosophical alignment with pro-choice and pro-gay rights folks, and on the other, she blames them for trying to bring her down.
Something doesn't add up. A person who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights doesn't propose or encourage strategies that will harm reproductive rights and gay rights. As Part One makes clear, there's nothing in her history to characterize her as a progressive on these issues except her statement at last night's forum. If there were, the media would have printed it when the stories broke. Progressives with some credibility as progressives understand her "fauxgressive" rhetoric. I think her party knows exactly who she is - someone who can appear moderate compared to the rest of them and won't lift a finger to stop their regressive agenda. Now, on to Part Two.
Part Two: Smith's Narrative of Persecution
Smith's tendency to demonize her critics and portray herself as persecuted was clear while she was a Trustee and continues today.
Here's one example from the School Board days. While on the Board, Smith and Peggy Anderson had their poor attendance reported to the government by a constituent, Donn Lovett. Lovett wanted them removed from the Board in accordance with the School Act. Smith claimed that the daytime budget meetings conflicted with her day job and suggested the scheduling of those meetings was done just so it would be impossible for her to attend. Jennifer Pollock, a Trustee at the time, confirms that Smith and Anderson had a political stance against attending budget meetings. They didn't think the elected board should have anything to do with the details of the budget, except to write general policy or guidelines. (I'll talk more about this in part three, when I talk about Smith's record on governance.) Smith and Anderson said trustees Jennifer Pollock, Liz LoVecchio and Judy Tilston had put Lovett up to the letter. Lovett responded, "Nobody needs to tell me to do anything." (See this source and Daveberta again.) [Addendum April 13, 2012: I've just been able to confirm with Donn Lovett that Smith initiated a law suit against him as a result of this incident.]
More recently, when opposition to the idea of “conscience rights” arose and a former supporter publicly bailed on Wildrose as a result, Wildrose started saying it was a plot against them by a liberals. Their former supporter was labelled a conservative mole. Like Lovett, she affirmed that she acted independently. (As do I, by the way.) Smith and Wildrose deny that their opponents might have brains of our own. To them, we are all puppets on a conspiratorial string.
Here's another example. Smith was well known as the subject of some legendary "mean girl" note passing during school board meetings, a situation widely believed to be the final straw for a frustrated public and the catalyst for the Board's removal. Smith released the notes to the media, and has since called this "good opposition research." She is obviously proud of her work here. Although she denies she retrieved the notes from the garbage, other trustees said that was the only place she could have found them. The point here is that Smith made it an issue, found the notes and made them public. She wanted those notes in the media. The media in turn were delighted to outline all the details of who said what about who's hair and someone's ugly suit. (See Daveberta's blog for excruciating detail on the whole note passing fiasco.)
In this campaign, Wildrose used another "mean girl" comment and made hay out of it. The Globe and Mail reported that Wildrose had used the ridiculous tweet about Smith's family life and childless status so that it played strongly in Smith's favour. At first, media was ignoring the tweet, because it was completely insignificant. Anyone who's ever been on Twitter knows it's full of crap like this. After being unable to light a fire under the tweet, Wildrose sent out a press release just to make sure everyone knew. They wanted it to be an issue. Yes, the tweet was ridiculous and insulting and the woman who tweeted it was idiotic and was dealt with. Similarly, yes, the notes were ridiculous and petty and all involved were publicly shamed. But Smith sure made the most of both of these situations to draw attention to herself. Even I felt sorry for her after the idiotic tweet. What a woman wants to do about a family is no one's business. I'm pro-choice. But I never would have known someone took a pot shot at her unless her people had spent so much time making sure I did. After I learned that, my sympathy evaporated. It reminded me too much of the "mean girl" note incident.
What’s interesting to me is that the "mean girl" notes about bad hair and the recent tweet are genuinely petty compared to saying you’ll put “issues like abortion” to citizen initiated referendum and enact conscience rights that override human rights. But it is this abortion issue and this conscience rights issue that Smith portrays as frivolous. Again, as the Globe and Mail notes, Smith says it's all liberal lies, electioneering and those darned easterners are behind it. (For the record, I'm from Toronto and moved to Calgary in 1988. In Smith's world, that fact alone would seem to be enough to dismiss my concerns about her policies.) If, as Smith says, “It’s typical of liberal politicians to demonize a conservative party using fear-mongering,” it is just as typical for Smith to demonize progressives and use their well-founded concerns to portray herself as hard done by and misrepresented.
This week, journalists are finding out just how little negative opinion Smith and the Wildrose are willing to brook. Another article in the Globe and Mail says that journalists who aren't towing the Wildrose Party line are being rebutted. But Wildrose is not just rebutting what they find to be errors in facts; they are rebutting so-called errors of opinion. They are coming down on people who merely disagree with them. This is all sounding very Stephen Harper to me. When Harper first got into power, he de-funded Status of Women Canada the Court Challenges Program, certainly both venues for dissenters. I could write a book about how Stephen Harper has quelled dissent, and right now the last chapter would be about CBC cuts.
As I've said before, the very idea that Conservatives are the subject of liberal media persecution is hard to buy when you remember that Smith used to work for the Calgary Herald, has had more than enough presence in media in both print and television, and that her husband is an executive with Sun Media. The media is biased? Really? In what direction? Does Smith really want to open up that can of worms?
I don't want a Provincial leader who cries persecution anytime anyone disagrees with them, or a leader who dismisses and derides dissent. And I sure don't want a leader who is going to pick a fight with the rest of Canada. I get a sense that Wildrose could start another persecution narrative, the old one where Alberta is hard done by within Canada. It's already started. Wildrose policy has enough in it to show us how a Wildrose government will relate to the rest of Canada. Wildrose is bothered by the fact that Albertans give more in transfer payments than we get. Oh poor Alberta. No reason for us to help out our neighbours. Libertarians leave that kind of stuff to individuals, remember? Wildrose policy suggests Alberta get its own immigration policy, opt out of Canada Pension in favour of our own, and that Alberta reject any federal legislation that might come to bear on our industry (read environmental rules). If Quebec were saying some of what's in the Wildrose policy book, the word "separatist" would surely arise. Someone else can blog about that.
Part Three: Government Smith Style
-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an e-book on Smashwords
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Stupid Policy Results in Media Attention - It's not a liberal plot
I've had a day to study the different responses to blog posts about the Wildrose on Abortion and the Alberta Party on Abortion. My conclusion? Abortion becomes an issue when a party says something stupid about it. Case in point. I blogged about the Alberta Party's stance on abortion and there was no response. A few hits on the posting, but not many. Why? Cynics might say it's because the Alberta Party has no chance of forming government. No one cares. Probably true. But what is also true is they didn't say anything shocking. Now, if all the parties said reasonable things, abortion never would have been mentioned in the mainstream media at all. (That's the media that Wildrose has taken to calling "lamestream" media as they channel Sarah Palin.)
So why did abortion become an issue? Is it those damn liberals? No, it was Wildrose who made it an issue. They said they would put social "issues like abortion" to citizen initiated referendum. Even if that was a "mistake" because now they realize and have to admit it would violate the Charter, it was a clear message to their base that they wanted to. It's just that darn Charter of Rights and Freedoms that keeps them from doing what they want.
It wasn't a one time mistake. They said it to me, they said it at least to one other citizen. (See my earlier post on the response to Wildrose.) That person didn't blog about it. They initially just shook their head, had their question answered, and moved on. I got the answer and spread the word. Why? Because I can. Because I consider it a public service. Because I care about the issue, not because I am an Eastern liberal cabal member. It wasn't a carefully laid plan to expose Wildrose. Yeah, that's it, I wrote a play about abortion and blogged about the issue for years, just waiting to expose a party that didn't exist yet when I started thinking about this issue. Yeah, that must be it. What a plan! I'm freaking brilliant.
I have read and heard repeated reports over the past few days that Danielle Smith says attacks on Wildrose on issues of conscience rights and their policy to govern by referendum are typical liberal attacks, part of a pattern of Liberals to demonize and vilify the right. Poor Wildrose. They have to concern themselves with dissent. Edmonton blogger Kathleen Smith posted about her decision to stop supporting Wildrose as a result of their stance on conscience rights and was immediately lambasted by the party who accused her of being a Conservative Mole (in Wildrose speak, a flaming capital L Liberal.) Apparently the phrase "terrorism campaign" was used. According the an Edmonton Journal article on the events, Kathleen Smith laughs off the suggestion that she's a Tory mole: "If I am, I'm brilliant." Yeah, I feel what you're saying Kathleen.
Of course the person getting the worst of this is Alison Redford. A progressive conservative in the style of Peter Lougheed, she is painted as being part of this imaginary liberal cabal that the Wildrose likes to vilify and that we hear so much about in Republican politics to the south. Apparently we control the media. If so, we've given Danielle Smith quite a pass. Her own history with the Calgary Herald and the fact that her husband is an executive with Sun Media is seldom made an issue. All I'm saying is in Alberta, the very notion that the media is liberal is laughable. Smith's political history has been largely whitewashed, with the notable exception of another blogger, Daveberta, who like Kathleen Smith has a much wider following than little old me. These days, with reduced media budgets for real investigation, digging up information gets left to folks like Daveberta. He does his homework. See these two articles on the Wildrose, the first on who the candidates are and who might form cabinet and the second on Ms. Smith's history on the Calgary Public School Board. Occasionally, someone like me stumbles upon a story without even realizing it's a story.
And again, it never would have been a story if Wildrose hadn't said something so surprising. Their own policy got seen for the craziness that it is through the application of a specific case, in this case, abortion. Governing by referendum is a hopelessly flawed way to govern. Anyone who needs proof, look no farther than California ballot initiatives. What kinds of things could be brought to referendum? Here's a start, without details beyond the general topic, in no particular order, with no logic or weight given to the possible success of the topic or whether it passes a charter challenge, because that's the way these initiatives would come up - totally randomly. Raising the age of consent. Lowering the age of consent. Parental consent for birth control for minors. Parental consent for abortion for minors, even if the preganancy was caused by incest. Require a panel of doctors to approve an abortion. Fund IVF. Don't fund IVF. Defund abortion. End Gay Marriage (hey it happened in California). Lower taxes. Lower corporate taxes. Implement flat taxes. Implement a sales tax. Eliminate school boards. Increase the power of school boards. Change the royalty regime (an oil business thing, for those who don't live here). Legislate a portion of all oil revenue into the Heritage Fund. End the Heritage Fund and distribute its contents to Albertans because our money is better off in our pockets with our Dani bucks. Alter property rights in favour of land owners. Alter property rights in favour of business. Reduce environmental protection. Increase environmental protection. Take flouride out of drinking water. Put flouride into drinking water. Ban the sale of genetically modified food. Ban the import of asparagus out of season. Impose a special fee on everyone who lives in Okotoks and Airdrie and commutes to Calgary to work for their daily use of Calgary's urban roads and services. Alternately, take a portion of property taxes raised in Airdrie and Okotoks and give it to Calgary for wear and tear. Impose Public Private Partnerships on all new school and hospital projects. Give urban centres more seats. Give rural Alberta more seats. Go nuclear free. Add nuclear power. Do I need to go on? Do you see what I'm getting at?
Government by referendum is a bad idea. What Wildrose said about abortion was a problem, but the policy (a real policy) of citizen initiated referendum that was behind that statement is the real problem. When we elect a government, we elect them to decide things. Wildrose wants power, but not the responsbility of government. They want to turn human rights over to the courts and people's individual consciences. They want to give any thorny issues back to the public.
Danielle Smith mocks Alison Redford for suggesting Alberta is changing and for stating she likes those changes. Alberta is fine, just the way it is, says Smith. Apparently, she doesn't believe that for a second. There are changes in store for us. Wildrose has a vision for Alberta, and the fact that I don't like it doesn't make me part of a terrorist campaign.
[Addendum April 15: Same theory proved again. Less than 50 hits on the post about the Progressive Conservative position on Abortion. Why? Because no one said anything ridiculous.]
-----
The Abortion Monologues is now available as an e-book through Smashwords. Download a copy onto your e-reader or as a PDF. Better yet, put on a show!
So why did abortion become an issue? Is it those damn liberals? No, it was Wildrose who made it an issue. They said they would put social "issues like abortion" to citizen initiated referendum. Even if that was a "mistake" because now they realize and have to admit it would violate the Charter, it was a clear message to their base that they wanted to. It's just that darn Charter of Rights and Freedoms that keeps them from doing what they want.
It wasn't a one time mistake. They said it to me, they said it at least to one other citizen. (See my earlier post on the response to Wildrose.) That person didn't blog about it. They initially just shook their head, had their question answered, and moved on. I got the answer and spread the word. Why? Because I can. Because I consider it a public service. Because I care about the issue, not because I am an Eastern liberal cabal member. It wasn't a carefully laid plan to expose Wildrose. Yeah, that's it, I wrote a play about abortion and blogged about the issue for years, just waiting to expose a party that didn't exist yet when I started thinking about this issue. Yeah, that must be it. What a plan! I'm freaking brilliant.
I have read and heard repeated reports over the past few days that Danielle Smith says attacks on Wildrose on issues of conscience rights and their policy to govern by referendum are typical liberal attacks, part of a pattern of Liberals to demonize and vilify the right. Poor Wildrose. They have to concern themselves with dissent. Edmonton blogger Kathleen Smith posted about her decision to stop supporting Wildrose as a result of their stance on conscience rights and was immediately lambasted by the party who accused her of being a Conservative Mole (in Wildrose speak, a flaming capital L Liberal.) Apparently the phrase "terrorism campaign" was used. According the an Edmonton Journal article on the events, Kathleen Smith laughs off the suggestion that she's a Tory mole: "If I am, I'm brilliant." Yeah, I feel what you're saying Kathleen.
Of course the person getting the worst of this is Alison Redford. A progressive conservative in the style of Peter Lougheed, she is painted as being part of this imaginary liberal cabal that the Wildrose likes to vilify and that we hear so much about in Republican politics to the south. Apparently we control the media. If so, we've given Danielle Smith quite a pass. Her own history with the Calgary Herald and the fact that her husband is an executive with Sun Media is seldom made an issue. All I'm saying is in Alberta, the very notion that the media is liberal is laughable. Smith's political history has been largely whitewashed, with the notable exception of another blogger, Daveberta, who like Kathleen Smith has a much wider following than little old me. These days, with reduced media budgets for real investigation, digging up information gets left to folks like Daveberta. He does his homework. See these two articles on the Wildrose, the first on who the candidates are and who might form cabinet and the second on Ms. Smith's history on the Calgary Public School Board. Occasionally, someone like me stumbles upon a story without even realizing it's a story.
And again, it never would have been a story if Wildrose hadn't said something so surprising. Their own policy got seen for the craziness that it is through the application of a specific case, in this case, abortion. Governing by referendum is a hopelessly flawed way to govern. Anyone who needs proof, look no farther than California ballot initiatives. What kinds of things could be brought to referendum? Here's a start, without details beyond the general topic, in no particular order, with no logic or weight given to the possible success of the topic or whether it passes a charter challenge, because that's the way these initiatives would come up - totally randomly. Raising the age of consent. Lowering the age of consent. Parental consent for birth control for minors. Parental consent for abortion for minors, even if the preganancy was caused by incest. Require a panel of doctors to approve an abortion. Fund IVF. Don't fund IVF. Defund abortion. End Gay Marriage (hey it happened in California). Lower taxes. Lower corporate taxes. Implement flat taxes. Implement a sales tax. Eliminate school boards. Increase the power of school boards. Change the royalty regime (an oil business thing, for those who don't live here). Legislate a portion of all oil revenue into the Heritage Fund. End the Heritage Fund and distribute its contents to Albertans because our money is better off in our pockets with our Dani bucks. Alter property rights in favour of land owners. Alter property rights in favour of business. Reduce environmental protection. Increase environmental protection. Take flouride out of drinking water. Put flouride into drinking water. Ban the sale of genetically modified food. Ban the import of asparagus out of season. Impose a special fee on everyone who lives in Okotoks and Airdrie and commutes to Calgary to work for their daily use of Calgary's urban roads and services. Alternately, take a portion of property taxes raised in Airdrie and Okotoks and give it to Calgary for wear and tear. Impose Public Private Partnerships on all new school and hospital projects. Give urban centres more seats. Give rural Alberta more seats. Go nuclear free. Add nuclear power. Do I need to go on? Do you see what I'm getting at?
Government by referendum is a bad idea. What Wildrose said about abortion was a problem, but the policy (a real policy) of citizen initiated referendum that was behind that statement is the real problem. When we elect a government, we elect them to decide things. Wildrose wants power, but not the responsbility of government. They want to turn human rights over to the courts and people's individual consciences. They want to give any thorny issues back to the public.
Danielle Smith mocks Alison Redford for suggesting Alberta is changing and for stating she likes those changes. Alberta is fine, just the way it is, says Smith. Apparently, she doesn't believe that for a second. There are changes in store for us. Wildrose has a vision for Alberta, and the fact that I don't like it doesn't make me part of a terrorist campaign.
[Addendum April 15: Same theory proved again. Less than 50 hits on the post about the Progressive Conservative position on Abortion. Why? Because no one said anything ridiculous.]
-----
The Abortion Monologues is now available as an e-book through Smashwords. Download a copy onto your e-reader or as a PDF. Better yet, put on a show!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
