Phendrana Drifts

I know Gaius Cassius well, the character from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. He seeks to assassinate Julius Caesar largely for reasons of greed, envy and ambition. Clothed in the concerns of the people of Rome, in this case that Caesar will dissolve the Republic and replace it with a monarchy, Cassius plots, schemes and recruits. Along with several other senators Cassius is going to kill the great Julius Caesar.

Marcus Brutus is different - similar in the means obviously, but noble. He genuinely believes the mission to kill and overthrow Caesar is an act of tyrannicide, necessary for Rome. So great is Brutus' honour and character that Mark Antony describes Brutus as "the noblest Roman of them all" - which coming from Caesar loyalist Antony is a big deal.

I bring up these characters, because when Cassius comes to you and asks you to kill the Emperor, you know you have to say no. And report him to the authorities. Brutus on the other hand, well, you hear him out. He is sane, rational, loyal and good. But in the end, the great Caesar has done wonders for Rome, and you are not willing to kill him on the steps of the Senate. It is wrong. No matter in Brutus' mind of course, since the murder is still destined to take place - just without you. After all, Senator Cassius seems more than willing to help. Do you say good bye to Brutus, or do you stab him in the back before he gets a chance to kill Caesar? If you kill Brutus, the good and decent man, what does that make you?

Paul Stanway, a columnist at the Edmonton Sun muses about the PC Leadership race in his column today. He does a small bit on Oberg at the beginning, and that is where the headline Oberg saying what lots of Tories think comes from. But after the bit on Oberg, he focuses on Mark Norris, and interviews Norris supporter Minister of Agriculture Doug Horner, who has gives a great slam against frontrunner Jim Dinning. Horner gives a positive review of Ed Stelmach but says Norris is his man. Asked about Dinning he says:

"I don't know Jim real well. I think I was in Grade 5 when he was in government."

Zing!

For those who missed it, Minister of Advanced Education Dave Hancock announced yesterday he was definitely in the race too, but has some loose ends to finish with the A Learning Alberta review and other post-secondary priorities before leaving his portfolio but will have his game face on before the June 1 deadline.

I got this e-mail from my friend Dave:

Lyle Oberg will be holding a press conference in Calgary, Alberta on Tuesday March 28th at 2:00 PM.

Mundane details on where.

The Room will be available to the Press at 1:30 pm for set up.

Office of Lyle Oberg MD
MLA Strathmore-Brooks
- 30 -

If you are in contact with other bloggers they are invited as well and please feel free to forward me the names of any bloggers we should include as invitees.

So to recap:

Dr. Oberg's speech on Friday: Good.
Dr. Oberg's whack of free press over the weekend: Good.
The potential of Dr. Oberg using today's press conference to start a political rehabilitation over the course of the next year: Good.
Treating bloggers as part of the media in order to produce further momentum for your campaign: Good.
The disaster of the comments, threatening the party and the Premier, being kicked out of caucus by caucus and the general state of his leadership bid: Not even the all King's horses and all the King's men are likely to put Dr. Oberg together again.

Still, it continues to make for great political theatre. I wake up each day excited to read the political news. And it is true, I was always excited. But I mean really excited. Look at the time, I woke up just so I could read my e-mail and the papers about Oberg and politics.

I am resisting the temptation to blog about Dr. Oberg. Which strangely leaves me without a lot to talk about. I thought about an analysis of the Alberta budget - the greatest casualty outside of Oberg himself was the media coverage of the budget. Compared to the Ontario budget, nothing resembling coverage. It was not even the headline in the paper on Thursday.

Well, no serious or real topic comes to mind, so I'll just give a recap on the week. It is a preparation week. The AGM this upcoming weekend promises to be a fantastic time - anyone who is going and wants to meet up for a drink or a gab, please drop me a line at duncan@phendrana.ca. I'm also piggy-backing on the AGM to give a short talk on how post-secondary education interacts with the provincial and federal government worlds at the University of Calgary. Following that is a week of meetings with MLA's here in Edmonton, which on the heels of the AGM could be the world's most interesting time, or just a time to get stuff done. Then, the next weekend I'm off to Canmore for Public Interest Alberta's action planning retreat.

Enough though, as that sounds like whining, because honestly this is going to be a hoot. Just some careful planning through the week to make sure it all goes smoothly.

Alberta Tory leadership contender Lyle Oberg was suspended indefinitely from caucus and stripped of his cabinet post Thursday over remarks he made about Premier Ralph Klein.

Read more...

I'm thinking of going to question period on Monday, just to see where Dr. Lyle Oberg will be sitting in the Legislature. I would call him Honourable, but alas, such an honourific does not travel with former Ministers of the Crown at the provincial level.

I wonder which office in the Legislature Annex will be his? Paul Hinman's digs were slightly upgraded when he moved to the fourth floor, so as far as I know the utility closet... I mean spacious and gorgeous office beside the security desk on the first floor is still available. If memory serves it looks out to a view of the Annex dumpster.

US President George W Bush has signed a bill to raise the national debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion.

The bill means the government can borrow a further $781 billion and stops what would have been a first ever default of Treasury notes.

Read more...

I am no economist, and I know there is an entire world of national finances I just don't have the background to allow me to fully dissect this, but let's consider this all the same.

First, to simply have an idea of how much money that is, we'll have to start doing some big conceptual thinking. First, let's convert it into Canadian dollars (since 95% of my audience in Canadian) - $10.5 trillion. Good. Now, let's compare it to a couple of things. First, let's say how much would I have to spend each day to spend $10.5 trillion in my lifetime. Assuming I live 80 years, or 29,220 days. Simple division gives us the figure of $359 million. Each day. Without exception. Hmm. That won't help, I think I would run out things to buy. I mean other than the obvious fleet of aircraft carriers and expensive foreign wars. I wonder if I can think of something else that will help put this in context...

How about this, in 2005 all of the governments of Canada combined, provincial, federal and municipal, spent $518 million. Every ounce of public spending in health care, education, defence, social services and maintaining the variety of public debts we have costs us $518 million as a nation. Fortunately, our governments took in $530 million, otherwise we would have our own debt and deficit problems. Still, comparing our government spending to the American debt is a lot like comparing apples to small cats. The United States is not like Canada, and spending is not the same as accumulated debt.

So, lets divide it on a per capita basis. There are 298 million in the United States. So again, employing division we come out with a figure of $35,234 (still using Canadian dollars) of debt per person. Phew, that is a bit more managable of a figure. That said, the gross domestic product of the United States is only $13 trillion (we're back to using American dollars). There will never be another time I hope where I use the word only in reference to $13 trillion. But the point is that the federal government (only one branch, so not including state debts and other public entity debts) of the United States has borrowed 70% of its GDP. If I borrowed like that, a guy named Guido would come to my door looking longingly at my knees.

So just before I go off on my rant about how very wrong this situation is I'll throw the Canadian figures up, now completely in Canadian dollars. Our federal government has borrowed an accumulated $523 million, down from $562 million in 2000. Our GDP is $1.252 billion, meaning Ottawa has borrowed 42% of its GDP. Or on a per captia basis, we each have our own $16,142 part of the debt. Looks pretty good for us, the legacy of some fiscal prudency by the federal government coupled with a booming economy in 1990's and into the 2000's.

Now to the meat of this - I'm not wild about public borrowing. In some circumstances, like the first and second world wars it made sense. But governments should still approach the question of borrowing carefully. And to be fair to the Bush administration and Republican congress, a lot of that debt is not new, they found it there when they entered office. But $3 trillion is new since 2002. A full third. And why do they need to borrow it? Sadly, the lack of political will to cut domestic spending or to increase taxes combined with the perceived need to go abroad on foreign military operations - i.e. Iraq.

This level of public spending, and public spending that is coming with no new schools, hospitals, infrastructure, or even, dare I say it, measurable improvement to the security of the American state, is appalling. The war in Iraq will certainly serve as the short term legacy of the Bush administration, and will in all likelihood be a problem beyond this administration, but that level of debt is a longer term reminder of W's years in the White House. It is enough debt that it will take a generation or longer of committed effort to pay it off. Spending levels that rival (and depending on how you crunch the numbers, exceed) the spending at the height of the Cold War. And for what?

Licia Corbella's column today in the Calgary Sun talks about PC leadership hopeful Mark Norris, and his views on a variety of subjects, most notably Alberta's role in Canada, i.e. separation. And interestingly, he apparently can take Canada or leave it. I don't say that to make him seem indifferent, but certainly he is willing to go down the separation road a lot further along than I am:

"When asked if he'd be willing to be the one to lead the province down the road of separation, his answer was unequivocal.

"The answer to that question is yes," said Norris."

To be fair, he does talk about it specifically and exclusively within the context of federal interferance in a NEP-style fashion regarding natural resources or the environment. All the same, I was shocked.

Allie pointed out that if someone makes you their blog of the week, you should probably blog, and preferably within that week. So with that in mind, and to match the political nature of the blog in question, here is a post.

Alberta's political circles, and in particular my own little world is all a twitter (is that really a word?) about Premier Ralph Klein's recent announcement that all seeking his post must announce their intentions and cease being cabinet ministers (if they are cabinet ministers) by June 1, 2006. This is a pretty big deal, both in the micro level of how this impacts the race for the PC leadership and Alberta politics in general as well as the macro level of how unprecedented the length and drastic nature of the pronouncement.

Well, when I first heard it I couldn't believe it. I mean, I honestly thought I misheard the date, and that the Premier actually meant June 1, 2007 - which would still be a healthy eight month lead time from the expected and announced February 2008 finish line (although I suspect that October or Novemeber 2007 is still more realistic).

Typically, I trust - or perhaps more accurately am impressed by - the Premier's political acumen. By in large, I saw few political flaws in the guy, the accidental trip to a homeless shelter aside. Policy wise, well sure, I don't agree 100% with the government 100% of the time, but in the business of politics, no one can deny the guy had a nose for it. That was until 2004 when the Premier made a mistake that I believe is the result of all of this. He let it slip that the 2004 election would be his last.

In politics, when a first minister announces that he will leave, regardless of how far in the future that might be, the environment reacts in a variety of ways, some predictable, some unpredictable. A good example of predictable would be a bunch of "tirekickers" jostling for position at the top of the heap to replace the top dog. Unpredictable would be Jean Chretien's flurry of policies that were, well for lack of a better word, bold - decriminalization of marijuana, speeding up the legalization of same-sex marriage, musing about a guaranteed minimum income. Regardless of the nature of these concequences, we can say they are destablizing to the government and especially to the political party in power, especially when the hold on political power is particularly strong - like the Liberals in Ottawa in 2002, or witness here in Alberta in 2006.

So in this relatively unstable environment, we see another unpredicatable edict from the first minister in question - if you're going to run for my job, leave my cabinet. Or I'll fire you from my cabinet.

After the first shock wore off, I had come to accept the decision, to some degree with resignation, much like people like Dr. Lyle Oberg. I don't think I would have called it good, or for the best, but I had come to accept. That said, not a lot of people are accepting it. My phone has been ringing off the hook and my inbox stuffed full with others who are genuinely pissed off about it, not to mention how this decision will actually manifest itself past June 1 and into the leadership race itself. Not to mention the actual length of this race, and how tiring it will be - not just on the candidates and leadership organizations (all of whom can take it I'm sure) but on the government, the media and the public. This story will get old and boring, not quickly, but I fear by December we may all be sick of stories about the leadership - the process stories of how a leadership campaign works, the stories of growing up in [insert Alberta town or city here] as a young [insert candidate name here], the "new" visions for Alberta.

But just think, by December there will still be some 14 months left. At least Chretien's good bye had some real fire in the summer 2002 (ah, the sweet summer of 2002, the civil war in the Liberal Party of Canada, how I miss you - oh wait, I can see a new civil war) and then the coronation of Paul Martin was simply so boring as to not even merit press coverage. Jim Dinning's lead isn't that far ahead, so there will be some coverage.

On the whole, I don't know if the decision to kick out candidates from cabinet 19 months before the actual vote is good or bad governance or politics. My instincts say it isn't, at least in so far as I would not have done it. But, I do think that it is connected to the poor decision of Klein to make public (or even privately admit) his choice to have the 2004 election be his last. If he hadn't, no one would need to be kicked out before October 2007 and no one save possibly Jim Dinning would be so actively organizing for a leadership bid. That might lead us to the conclusion that under such circumstances Dinning would sew up the bid in the time between 2004 and 2007. Possibly. But the decision by the Premier now I think might have just guaranteed a Dinning win. But I am still hoping for a horse race.

Elaine is Iron Man. I think she is disappointed with it.

So this should be the first post of a new era, and the truth is I am too exhausted to think of something intelligent to write. It was a busy day today, and a lot went on. And I have some fairly lengthy thoughts, but they are still for the most part in the formative stages. But a couple of thoughts to help tide us all over:

Stephen Harper gets a communications win

It was about time, but finally the new Prime Minister does something that gets a thumbs-up, both from me and the general Canadian public. Paul Wells points out that it isn't quite as groundbreaking as the media and PMO are making it out to be, but I don't think that should take away from the fact that it doesn't just look good, but it is good in of itself.

People are mean, but not usually to me

My faith in the human spirit is usually pretty high. I like people, and I usually think they are naturally good creatures. I am an optimist that way. Which is a good thing given the very high contact and people-oriented work and personal worlds I inhabit. But something is happening over this past week that is shaking my faith in some of those assumptions. I am merely an observer in this latest incident, but wow... I would say more, but it really isn't my place to talk about it, especially in a public forum. I guess this is where this post really has a lot in common with past posts - I am kind of just blogging to hear myself type or something.

Twitter Updates