Lead Me Not Into Temptation...

Long time, no speak, Nation... a situation I hope to begin rectifying at some point tomorrow, when the crap hits the fan in Egmont.

I'm in the People's Republic of Redmonton, for a completely NON-politics-related work trip. I walk into my hotel, only to be stared in the face by the following sign:

ALBERTA LIBERAL CAUCUS OPEN HOUSE

DOWNSTAIRS

I'll try to be strong, and resist the urge to go see whether they're using Lego or Superblox. ;)

- E.S., on location (much to his surprise)

Calgary Egmont - There Goes The Neighbourhood

Well, Nation, the "Big 2" have confirmed their nominations for the provincial constituency of Calgary Egmont. The contenders are:

Cathie Williams, former chair of the Calgary Catholic School Board.

Craig Chandler, head of the PGIB. Remember this?

This riding is just BEGGING for a legitimate candidate to crawl up through the middle, run a high-profile campaign waging war simultaneously against Williams' proclivity towards spending taxpayer dollars and Chandler's proclivity towards, well, being Chandler.

Wildrose? Whatchya got?

Don't Tase Me, Bro...

The recent travesty at Vancouver's airport has reintroduced the debate over the use of Tasers by police forces in this country. Cops say they need the devices, to reduce the likelihood of deadly force being needed. Defence lawyers and activist groups decry their use as being akin to torture. What are the facts?

Tasers were introduced in 1969 as an alternative to the use of deadly force. Their use was to be considered only in situations where, until this point, the officers would have had to fire their sidearm. In other words, the Taser was designed as an alternative to a bullet: Far less permanent, far less frequently deadly. But, in its initial roll-out, the device was to be used ONLY as an alternative to deadly force. If the officer's life was in imminent danger, or the life of an innocent was in danger, the device would be used to provide a non-lethal resolution to the threat, as opposed to shooting and possibly killing the suspect.

In the nearly 40 years since, the Taser has gained popularity and profile amongst law enforcement as a compliance tool. Instead of "correcting a suspect's behaviour" with the baton, you tase him. Quick and effective, right? If he won't listen, settle down, allow you to cuff him, or is in any way resisting or trying to get away, you shock him. It works 99% of the time, which is more than can be said for batons (too hard to get a good back-swing) and pepper-spray (messy, and you might get some on yourself).

The problem has become that cops today are too reliant on the device. They use it not to avoid killing a suspect, as originally intended, but to elicit compliance. They police are under-staffed, stretched too thin, and they lack the time (or, in some instances, ability) to reason with a suspect, to calm them down, to explain what is going on, or wait for an interpreter. There's going to be another emergency call in 10 minutes, so they tase him, take him back to the station, and head off to the next call.

One needs only to watch "Cops" to see this proclivity towards "compliance at all costs" on the part of law enforcement today. If he won't let you cuff him, you tase him. If he won't get out of the car, you tase him. If he runs, don't chase him - tase him.

The RCMP in Vancouver should not have used the Taser in their situation. Unless the "suspect" (who did not speak English) indicated he had a bomb strapped to him, there was no reason that the 4 (!) of them could not have wrestled him to the ground if he became threatening. There is no way that any of those officers can say he felt his life or the life of a bystander was in danger, so there was no need to deploy the Taser.

The bigger question that we, as a society, have to answer is whether or not Tasers should be used by our police forces at all. The more accustomed to using them that our police become, the more they find they HAVE to use them, as old-school policing and the associated skill set (negotiation, scene control, etc.) fall victim to the need to clear scenes as quickly as possible due to manpower shortages. In a world where our police had the resources, training and manpower to do their jobs properly, Tasers would only be used for their original purpose: Instead of shooting and possibly killing someone who is trying to kill them, the officers would use the Taser.

Tasers can and do kill people, and the police use them far too often. But, on the whole, Tasers are a lot less lethal than the bullets they were meant to replace. They should NOT be used to guarantee compliance with police, or to stop people from running or resisting - they should be used to stop people from killing. There's a BIG drop-off there.

If my friend won't let the police cuff him for an overdue parking ticket, I don't want him tased. But if he gets drunk and lunges towards an officer, I'd rather have him "ride the lightning" at 50,000 volts than catch a bullet. My take? Keep the Tasers as a non-lethal option, increase the number of officers on the streets, and make sure that you spend 10 times as much effort on teaching officers to reason with suspects as you do Taser, pepper spray and proper baton technique.

Has It Already Been A Year? The Self-Congratulatory Anniversary Post

Nation, this blog sprung into being on November 15th, 2006. In the 365 days since (not counting today), I have posted 177 times on subjects ranging from the PC Leadership Race to the Calgary Municipal Election. From Hussein's execution to the death of respectful political discourse.

I would be lying if I told you all that I expected to still be doing this a year later. At the time, I wasn't really all that familiar with the "blogosphere" - I knew it existed, but didn't really sift through it in any significant depth. This ignorance led me to believe that nobody was covering the PC Leadership Race in the way that I believed it should be covered - after all, PC members were choosing Alberta's next Premier, and there was as much main-stream media attention being paid, in the initial stages, as if it were a school board election. Turns out the guys getting all the attention lost.

I was shocked, early on, to find that my writing was resonating with people. I've always had something of a knack for expressing myself on the page, but to have intelligent, politically-informed people sending me messages of support, and posting about this new, anonymous blogger who seemed to know what he was talking about... it was both surprising and extremely gratifying. It still is. I can't tell you how happy I am when I see my blog being discussed elsewhere on-line, because it means people are talking - and not just about me, but about the issues I'm raising, which was the entire point.

I have noticed some discussion as to the identity of this blogger... and I'll re-iterate my stance that, due to my position with the Government of Alberta, "coming out" could have very negative implications for my income. I welcome the conjecture, though. My favourite rumour thus far is that I'm a backbench Tory MLA. Does anyone really think that I'd be content to be a BACKBENCH MLA? ;-)

I couldn't help but notice that my blog hasn't been put forward for any blog awards - surely, the nominations were lost in the mail? ;-)

I thought that this blog would help cure the occasional "politic-itch" that I have experienced in the past, let me get a few things off my chest, and then fade into obscurity. I have found instead, though, that it has renewed my optimism, my passion, and my desire to contribute to the process in a positive way - by covering the issues, or by perhaps someday stepping forward and putting my name on a ballot (if, conspiracy theorists, I haven't already).

Nation, I will continue to fight the good fight, and as most of you know, I am by no means alone. There are many wonderful bloggers of ALL political stripes, from the very partisan to the completely unbiased. Be they municipally-focused, provincial or federal, they work day in and day out to present something that will inform, enlighten, and entertain all of us. Let me tell you - except for a rare few, blogging doesn't pay well, if at all. Nobody's doing this for the money. The people that you find out here in the media wilderness plugging away are doing so out of a desire to contribute to the discussion. I applaud them, and remain in awe of the work that they do - I am proud to be numbered among you.

I would be remiss at this time if I didn't thank all of the wonderful and supportive people who have offered encouragement (or a kick in the pants) when it was sorely needed. Be they bloggers or readers, their feedback and support has bolstered me and served as a valuable reminder that what I say, and how I say it, DOES resonate with people - I have a responsibility to them to "get it right and be fair", and to at all times respect the intelligence of my readers, whether they agree with me or not. It's a lesson that I remind myself of daily.

Special thanks go out to:

• The wonderfully supportive Duncan and Allie, who introduced me to the blogosphere and held my hand when I was in unfamiliar climes;
• That up-and-coming youngster Ken Chapman, whose wise and encouraging words helped me through a particularly difficult cross-roads;
• Larry Johnsrude who, despite joining "the dark side" recently was the first "real media" person to acknowledge that I might have some intelligent things to say despite my lack of a journalism degree;
• CalgaryGrit and daveberta who, despite our differing leanings have been nothing but supportive in their comments;
• Kirk Schmidt (the next MP for Calgary West), who has helped restore my faith that good people who want to make a change can and will go up against incredible odds;
• Naheed Nenshi of the Better Calgary Campaign, who surprised me with his confession to being a member of the E.S. Nation (I knew he was smart, but never suspected he was THAT smart - thanks for reading, Naheed);
• anonymous poster - you know who you are, and so do I;
• All of the candidates for various elections who have linked to this blog under their "media" sections - thank you for running, and thank you for the nod;
• To the much-maligned (wrongfully, in my opinion) Scott Tribe and the folks at Progressive Bloggers who, despite the fact that I'm not a fire-breathing radical lefty, still give me a forum from which to occasionally point out that not all conservatives are neanderthals;
• And most of all to my lovely fiancee, the soon-to-be Mrs. Savage, whose never ending patience while listening to me "clack-clack" into the wee hours has made all of this possible. Sugar, you know I'd give this all up tomorrow if you asked, so thank-you for not asking. :-)

It's been a great year, Nation. Here's to another!

Self-aggrandizing, congratulatory post done. Back to the issues. :-)

Is David Lloyd Johnston REALLY an "Independent, Impartial Third Party"?

Nation, I'm not one to see conspiracy theories around every corner. And yet, at the risk of throwing a wet blanket on the celebratory mood of the media that they finally have their "Independent, Impartial Third Party" named for the three-ring circus that is sure to come, something smells at least a LITTLE bit fishy.

David Lloyd Johnston was the Principal at McGill between 1979 and 1994.

The Honourable Alan B. Gold was Chair of the Board of Governors at McGill from 1978 to 1982. So, for 3 years, he was Johnston's boss.

Everyone with me so far?

The Honourable Alan B. Gold negotiated the settlement between the Government of Canada and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney.

So, let's review: The guy who negotiated the settlement of Mulroney's libel lawsuit against the Chretien Government was the boss of, and presumably stayed in touch with, the guy who is making the recommendation about the scope of and need for a full inquiry into the affair.

Gee, do you think in the 12 years between the initial settlement and Alan Gold's death, the case ever came up over dinner?

Could be nothing... could be everything. The reality of conflict isn't at issue. In cases such as this, it is the PERCEPTION of impropriety or conflict that is the problem.

Sorry to say - and apparently I'm the first - but something about this stinks.

- E.S.

Margaret Atwood Writes to the Enlightened Savage

Nation, I routinely get e-mail from the Green Party. I'm not a member of the Greens, and to be honest, have no idea how they got my e-mail address in the first place. I don't overly mind, though - they don't come very often, and I suppose in my heart of heart I'm an environmentalist above all other issues, so I let it slide.

One of the favoured tactics of the Greens seems to be to have "intellectual celebrity endorsements" coming directly from the intellectual celebrity. I received a message about 4 months ago from David Suzuki, extolling the evils of Stephen Harper (for the record, I think I recall David suggesting that Stephen eats live human babies, but it WAS a while ago, so I can't be certain - maybe that was just the TONE of the message...). Well, just a few days ago, I received an e-mail message from noted Canadian author Margaret Atwood. The text is below, with rebuttal underneath.

Dear Friend,

Global warming -- with the related environmental degradation, "natural" catastrophes, and accelerating species extinction -- is surely the biggest issue facing, not just Canada, but the entire planet. Without oxygen to breathe, water to drink, and soil to grow food in, a cut to the GST is worth nothing. It won't matter if you're paying 1% less GST if you're dead. Nor will your survivors care much that they got a deal on your coffin -- they'll be dead, too.

Yet Stephen Harper's government has gone from outright denial of climate change to lukewarm attempts to cover up and paper over this issue, while all the time keeping Stephen Harper's pledge to "build a firewall around Alberta." Stephen Harper doesn't want us to develop alternate energy, he wants us to keep burning oil. That's why there was no significant money for green economic development in his latest budget.

The Green Party can be depended on to keep green issues front and centre. Graeme Gibson and I joined the Green Party to support Elizabeth May as its Leader. In October, we traveled to the heart of Elizabeth's Nova Scotia Pictou riding to give a boost to her campaign to defeat Peter MacKay. Speaking to a packed hall of 600 local voters, I enumerated the reasons why Pictou should send Elizabeth May to the Canadian Parliament.

She is fearless.

She is honest.

Having led the Sierra Club for so long, she knows where the bodies are buried. If people make untrue statements about environmental issues, she'll have the expert knowledge to call them on it.

When she gives her word, either in writing or orally, she keeps her word -- unlike Peter MacKay, who promised not to demolish the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, but then did it.

In October -- even in the home town of Peter MacKay -- there was spontaneous cheering and two standing ovations for Elizabeth May. Some of this was no doubt due to his betrayal of the old Progressive Conservative Party in the merger with Alliance. As I wrote at the time, the Alliance Party were the "body snatchers." They consumed the Progressive Conservative Party whole and emerged as the new "Conservative" Party. Elizabeth insists we must not call them "Tories." They are the Alliance-Conservative-Republican Party of Canada.

Like Elizabeth, I believe we must stay focused on defeating Stephen Harper. Ensuring Elizabeth May is in the Leaders' Debate is key. The Green Party must have the resources it needs to raise the most important issues of our time. It must be able to wage significant campaigns, especially in key areas.

Donations can be made to the Green Party, and to other parties as well. The Elections Act allows personal donations only. You can donate up to $1,100 each year to the national party and $1,100 to one local riding (electoral district).

We need to put Elizabeth May into the House of Commons so that she can speak honestly about an issue that is of top importance to Canadians. When a general election is called, and if I am in the country at the time, I will travel to Pictou and go door-to-door for Elizabeth.

Please make your donation today.

Yours truly, Margaret Atwood

Okay, let's go back over the message... my responses, fittingly, in green.

Dear Friend,

Global warming -- with the related environmental degradation, "natural" catastrophes, and accelerating species extinction -- is surely the biggest issue facing, not just Canada, but the entire planet. Without oxygen to breathe, water to drink, and soil to grow food in, a cut to the GST is worth nothing. It won't matter if you're paying 1% less GST if you're dead. Nor will your survivors care much that they got a deal on your coffin -- they'll be dead, too.

All right, well first off, Margaret, thank-you for taking the time to write me. As a frequent reader of my blog, you're no doubt aware that I value the participation of EVERY Canadian in our democracy, so kudos to you.

I was hoping, though, if you could kindly enlighten me as to what exactly "global warming" - the subject of the above paragraph - has to do with "oxygen to breathe, water to drink, and soil to grow food in". I mean, they're certainly all important issues, perhaps the MOST important issues, but global warming doesn't have an effect on oxygen levels - perhaps you're confusing global warming with air pollution? They're not the same thing. Jean Chretien made the same mistake a few years back, so don't feel too bad. I just expected that a world-renowned author might have done a bit of homework on her subject matter, is all.

Yet Stephen Harper's government has gone from outright denial of climate change to lukewarm attempts to cover up and paper over this issue, while all the time keeping Stephen Harper's pledge to "build a firewall around Alberta." Stephen Harper doesn't want us to develop alternate energy, he wants us to keep burning oil. That's why there was no significant money for green economic development in his latest budget.

I'm guessing, by the way you tell us what Stephen Harper wants, that you've spoken to him about this issue, and he has told you as much? Could I bother you for some proof?

See, Margaret, here's the problem with the environmental movement in general, and the Green Party in particular... This is an EMOTIONAL issue, but if you want to politically agitate for change, you have to appeal to people's higher-developed, logical brains. Saying "he doesn't like trees because he's a jerk!", or "he cut taxes but didn't pledge $5B for tree-planting, so he doesn't CARE about the environment" plays to the emotional heart-strings of people, but in a political forum, it reeks of junior high class presidential speeches. "He's a jerk, vote for me".

Also, nice use of the "Firewall" reference. I wonder, if you polled Albertans, how many would say that the federal government has favoured Alberta above all other provinces since Stephen Harper took office? After all, if he's willing to sacrifice, as you imply, the health of his future grandchildren for the good of the oil-patch, then he has no doubt favoured Alberta in many obvious ways... right?

The Green Party can be depended on to keep green issues front and centre. Graeme Gibson and I joined the Green Party to support Elizabeth May as its Leader. In October, we traveled to the heart of Elizabeth's Nova Scotia Pictou riding to give a boost to her campaign to defeat Peter MacKay. Speaking to a packed hall of 600 local voters, I enumerated the reasons why Pictou should send Elizabeth May to the Canadian Parliament.

She is fearless.

That's good, I guess... will she be taking on live small-weapons' fire in the House?

She is honest.

Well, she has on several occasions noted her friendship with Bill Clinton - and, as Bill might point out, that might depend on how you define "is".

Having led the Sierra Club for so long, she knows where the bodies are buried. If people make untrue statements about environmental issues, she'll have the expert knowledge to call them on it.

"She knows where the bodies are buried"... you mean, like this guy? Again, the bottom line is that the "truth" is so open to emotionalism and interpretation on this issue that it deflects the attention away from the issue and onto minutiae. I mean, you can't even get a room full of 50 scientists to agree that global warming is even HAPPENING - how are you going to accuse someone of lying, when the facts are in dispute by the TRUE experts in the field?

When she gives her word, either in writing or orally, she keeps her word -- unlike Peter MacKay, who promised not to demolish the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, but then did it.

You mean like when she committed to run in the riding of Cape Breton-Canso (she's not)?

In October -- even in the home town of Peter MacKay -- there was spontaneous cheering and two standing ovations for Elizabeth May. Some of this was no doubt due to his betrayal of the old Progressive Conservative Party in the merger with Alliance. As I wrote at the time, the Alliance Party were the "body snatchers." They consumed the Progressive Conservative Party whole and emerged as the new "Conservative" Party. Elizabeth insists we must not call them "Tories." They are the Alliance-Conservative-Republican Party of Canada.

Okay Margaret, here's the part you're not going to like.

If you are writing me on behalf of Elizabeth May, and in your message you tell me what she believes, then you are endorsing those beliefs.

You are a nearly 70 year-old woman. You are a literary giant. And you just crossed the line into school-yard name-calling.

I don't know your position on George W. Bush, but I could probably hazard a guess. That doesn't concern me. Likewise, I imagine you're not overly fond of the Conservative Party of Canada, or their forebears, the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party. What DOES concern me is that you are labelling someone in much the same way as men used to label women - by what we SAY you are, rather than how you self-identify. 30 years ago, to do this in Margaret Atwood's presence would be unforgivable. Now, she is doing it herself. Unless you can prove to me that Stephen Harper intends to eschew the monarchy and declare Canada a republic, you have just shown yourself to be hypocritical at worst, and juvenile at best.

The name of the party in government is "The Conservative Party of Canada". To identify them as anything other than that suggests that it is in fact perfectly acceptable to refer to you as "Maggie Polk", or "Graeme Gibson's Ball-and-Chain". Sure, it's not accurate, or what you WANT to be called... but, since we're name-calling, what do I care? If it's good enough for a Booker Prize-winning writer, it's good enough for a Blogger from Calgary.

Like Elizabeth, I believe we must stay focused on defeating Stephen Harper. Ensuring Elizabeth May is in the Leaders' Debate is key. The Green Party must have the resources it needs to raise the most important issues of our time. It must be able to wage significant campaigns, especially in key areas.

I couldn't agree more. The Greens deserve to be in the Leaders' Debate. They run candidates in every riding in the country, and pull in around 5% support WITHOUT media attention.

Donations can be made to the Green Party, and to other parties as well. The Elections Act allows personal donations only. You can donate up to $1,100 each year to the national party and $1,100 to one local riding (electoral district).

We need to put Elizabeth May into the House of Commons so that she can speak honestly about an issue that is of top importance to Canadians. When a general election is called, and if I am in the country at the time, I will travel to Pictou and go door-to-door for Elizabeth.

Please make your donation today.

Yours truly, Margaret Atwood

(end message)

Now, I know a lot of you are going to find it contradictory that I on one hand applaud Margaret for getting involved, and then on the other hand rip her to shreds for her letter. "This is why more people don't get involved", I'll hear.

The truth is, if you are going to endorse a candidate and make statements on their behalf, then you are completely engaged in the process, and therefore open to criticism. To allow Atwood to make statements unchallenged gives her and her candidate an unfair advantage - she can name-call in a public forum, but is above reproach because of who she is? Hardly.

I like the Greens. They're great environmentalists, and as politicians, well, they're great environmentalists. They need to work on their communications strategy, though. The problem with limiting your candidates to "true believers only" is that you end up with bad politicians trying to run for office. At that point, it doesn't matter what they intend to do - if they're bad politicians, they're not getting elected, and therefore can't do diddly squat. So long as the Greens continue to field candidates based on their environmental credentials first and their political skill second, it doesn't matter how many intellectual celebrities write letters on their behalf, or even if they get into the Leaders' Debate or not - they will not be elected.

To know your issues, and be passionate about them, is one thing. But when asking for the people's consent to govern them, you must at least feign an interest in other issues, and show people how you are going to advance your own agenda while still having the time and resources to advance theirs.

After all, to paraphrase Margaret Atwood:

Without streets to drive, a home in which to live, money to pay for food, a cut to Greenhouse Gas emissions is worth nothing. It won't matter if we're emitting 30% less CO2 if I'm living in a cave in Fish Creek Park. Nor will my children care much that they've got an extensive system of bicycle trails to ride -- they won't be able to afford a bicycle.

The Greens are solid on their primary focus. But a one-issue party can't get elected to govern Federally, no matter HOW well versed they are on that issue.

Lest We Forget

89 years ago today, the bells of peace pealed across the landscape of Europe. The "War to End All Wars", tragically a misnomer, had come to an end.

In the many years since, we have seen and heard much of war here, tucked away safely by geography and distance. Some have tried to paint the World Wars as glorious triumphs of the human spirit.

Triumphs? Certainly. But war holds no glory. Only death, and suffering.

My ancestors tilled the fertile soil in the fresh, new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. When hostilities broke out between the British Empire and the Kaiser's Germany, these ancestors saw even the most basic of their farm implements confiscated by the Canadian government, for fear that with names like "Schmidt" and "Kroenader" they might be enemy infiltrators. And yet, these men, and hundreds like them, reported to enlistment offices across their new country, volunteered, were given weapons and went back to the country of THEIR ancestors, to fight their own cousins for the freedoms of generations yet unborn, in both countries.

Many never came home. The ones that did were never the same.

The men and women who have died serving our country deserve our commemoration. On this day, and on ALL days. However, while you are observing your moment of silence today at 11 a.m. local time, also pay your due respect to those who came home from these terrible conflicts. Those who fell in the field paid for our freedoms with their lives - however, they now sleep in peace. Any combat veteran can tell you that peaceful sleep is rare for them - the faces of comrades lost, or atrocities witnessed, of the men they had no choice but to kill...

The ones who came home paid in blood for our freedom, and have done so every night since. Let us not forget them, even while we pay our respects to their fallen brothers and sisters-in-arms. We owe ALL that we have to the sacrifices that they and their torch-bearers made, and continue to make.

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead.
Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Responsible Ownership

Nation, today we're going to talk a little bit about the responsibility of ownership.

As the owner of several enterprises myself, I know all too well how difficult it is to stay on top of things - there always seems to be another complication, another document written in unintelligible legal-ese that needs to be reviewed and signed, another management issue that needs to be resolved... indeed, I found myself as recently as September debating whether hiking the price for one of my services (for the first time in 10 years) would cost me clients (it didn't). Luckily, they considered the small increase worth the investment, as they have been quite satisfied with the service they receive. I'm still also about 20% under the market-rate, as well, so there's something to be said for that as well. Any cheaper, and they could pay me in U.S. Dollars. :)

The parallel between my own situation and the recent Royalty Review shouldn't be lost on anyone. The problem is this: As Albertans, we are all shareholders in a 10.5 TRILLION dollar reserve of crude oil (175 billion barrels, at a low-ball figure of $60/per barrel). We OWN those resources. And we actually get asked for our opinion on the management of those resources once every 4 or so years, come election time. Not that anything necessarily changes with the management - we just have a chance to go into a voting station and express ourselves.

The fact is, each and every single one of us owns over 3.5 MILLION DOLLARS worth of the oil sitting in Alberta. And, until the release of the Royalty Review and the Stelmach government's soliciting of public feedback, we have rarely in our lifetimes been asked for our opinion on how the government is managing our own personal $3.5 Million nest egg.

Well, the recommendations have been made, the decision has been handed down, and there are random sample telephone polls all over the place. The only thing that all these polls have in common is the fact that most of them have an extremely large number of respondents who, in effect, told the pollster to shove off and leave them alone. Media outlets interpret this as meaning they don't like the decision made by the Stelmach government. I interpret this as "I'm eating my dinner, stop calling me". Slight difference of context, no?

Well, now you can express your opinion in an in-depth and thoughtful poll that pushes you neither towards a favourable or critical view or opinion of the Royalty issue. I would encourage each and every one of you to take a few minutes of your time and go to Policy Channel to take their "Alberta's Oil Sands Survey" (link is on the top left corner of their page).

After all, it's YOUR $3.5 Million. Shouldn't you have a better way to express an opinion than marking an "x" once every 4 years?

From the Inbox - Save Kananaskis!

Nation, I get email from all across our great province and beyond, asking for my assistance in bringing causes, events, and injustices to light.

One such email came from a group calling itself "Save Kananaskis" (they wanted to be the "Save Kananaskis Society", but the provincial government denied them society standing).

Their website covers their issue in much greater detail than I could hope to, so I'd encourage anyone interested in conservation, or anyone who lives in Calgary but plays in K-Country, to check it out for yourselves.

A very well-produced video highlights their cause, here.

Other videos of the type of nonsense that is allowed to happen in what many Calgarians mistakenly think is a provincial park (it is, in fact, a Forest Land Use Zone, allowing clear-cut logging, oil and natural gas wells, and hunting on the same trails as you and your kids hike on!) can be found here, here, here, and here. By the way, if you're one of the 500,000 Calgarians living in the city's South, you'll be interested to know that those jeeps, SUV's and even the Neon are driving through (and leaking oil, gasoline, and god only knows what else) into water that feeds the Elbow River.

Which is the source of your drinking water.

Enjoy!

"Save Kananaskis" is having a rally TODAY, November the 2nd, at 4:30 pm outside the CAOC Building (1111 Memorial Dr.), on the river side of Memorial at the Louise Bridge. The map and further information are available here. They are hoping to pressure the province to extend the protection of a full Provincial Park to the Eastern parts of Kananaskis near Bragg Creek, which currently allow everything you saw in the videos above.

To the thousands of Calgarian outdoors enthusiasts who proudly call themselves members of the E.S. Nation - now's your chance to have a direct impact. Calgary's playground, Kananaskis, is in the middle of a tug-of-war between conservation and resource development. Which side will you choose?