Masks off & Gloves on

As a graduate student in public policy and global governance, I've done a fair bit of work revolving around the G8 and G20 meetings and their implications for the international community. As the G8 and G20 meetings come to Canada this year, I'm glad to see that organized labour has taken the step to remove the sensationalism out of the protests by banning masks and bandannas that cover the face.

While there's some comic relief when you see a protester wearing a giant George W. Bush head; the organizers of the G8 protests are correct in asserting that the masked protesters are often what the media focus' on rather than the ideas and policies the rally intends to illuminate.

Moreover, masked demonstrators are not among the most highly acclaimed in society - particularly in a culture that believes those who are innocent have nothing to hide. Therefore, "What purpose does a mask serve?" asks the middle-class 6 o'clock news watcher. And, to be sure, they are right.

The G8 is largely a talk-shop between leaders of countries of similar socio-economic status. Those who believe Obama, Sarkozy, Harper, Berlusconi, Hatoyama, Merkel, Brown, and Medvedev are going to sit around a giant globe and drink goblets full of kitten's blood, need to remove their tin-foil hats and lay off the caffeine. The G8 is of political importance and the talks between these leaders may lead to future international agreements/commitments; but mostly it's a place for policy transfer and informal policy learning. Not to take away the importance of these people getting together to be themselves out of the political limelight for a while.

If G8 protests and rallies want to make an impact on the meetings they'll have a clear and consistent message and hopefully some policy alternatives. Demands and chants are alright, but they're not going to change what's going on because this is not the venue for game-changing decisions. There will be announcements and commitments, that's for sure - but only to satisfy the public's need to see something getting "done" through these talks. Anything announced should not be anything really new or radical to the public, nor to the leaders who had an idea about this agenda since the last summits in Italy (G8) and Pittsburgh (G20).

Lastly, the G8 is coming to a close. It's relevance is fading as we're seeing a rise from the developing south's leaders: Brazil, India, China, South Africa and Mexico (otherwise known as the B(R)ICs or B(R)ICSAM - the (R) stands for Russia, who is a part of the G8 more out of historical and political importance than current economic strength). By including the BRICSAM block and a few others into the G8 to become the G20; the leaders of the developed countries are slowly coming around to the emerging reality of international politics in a globalized world.

It was an endeavor began by PM Paul Martin to bring the top 20 nations of the world together (dubbed the L20 - L for leadership) to make the G8 more reflective of a post-Cold War international world. He knew that something larger was needed to augment the old club by incorporating newer economic powers and some developing countries into international economic meetings. At Glen Eagles, Scotland, his vision was slowly becoming a reality and eventually, in 2009, it was announced that the G8 meetings would end and the G20 would take its place.

Protesters of the G8 and G20 meetings do have some points when it comes to global governance and issues facing the global south. For example, the G20 has South Africa speaking for the entire continent - a far cry from fair representation if we're going to talk about economic and political development and aid for Africa. Equally fair questions are: can the Indian government really address social and economic issues related to the caste system fairly at the G20 when they are incapable of moving on those issues at home? Will G20 membership benefit those marginalized? Additionally, does G20 membership for China justify some of their abusive and socially destructive development projects, like the Three Gorges Damn, for the sake of economic growth?

Applying pressure to the G20, or to the G8, will be tough since it was never meant to be an open-door forum. Nor should it be. If it was, we'd just get political posturing and even more watered-down commitments from the most non-committal states.

Masks off & gloves on. If protesters are going to challenge the legitimacy of the G8 they have to secure their own legitimacy as a viable voice against globalization in the households and TV screens of the G20 nations.

RCI on biases: EKOS and Candian Taxpayers Federation

Lemmie get this straight: Frank Graves of EKOS cannot call the shots like they are and interpret the facts - even if they should benefit one political party over another (statistically speaking); but the Canadian Taxpayers Federation can speak for Western and rural Canadians on behalf of the Conservative party and that's okay?

Graves was right in his comments and analysis; regardless of whose feathers they ruffled. If we're going to look at where voter intentions lie and on what issues draw or repel party support then that is within the realm of legitimate things presidents of research firms should speak on. I've never heard Alan Gregg apologize for speaking hypothetically in his analysis of the numbers. And, of course, the CBC has to be brought into the debate and their "credibility" smeared by the so-called "taxpayers" federation just because they didn't report on how awful of a human being Graves and dismissing his comments outright.

Whether Graves should have used the term "culture war" or not, he has a point and that's why - in my opinion - right wingers are all in a tizzy. That being said, this culture war needs to be framed by the Liberals and cannot be too heavy on the republicanism that is rampant throughout the neo-Conservative Party of Canada. Why? Because that has been beaten to death and there are no new talking points they could use - just noise from 2004 and 2006 elections.

Moreover, who cares if Alberta doesn't like the message? They're not voting Liberal anyways.

The Conservatives want to be viewed as the pragmatists and fiscal heroes - which, for all intents and purposes, they are not. This record and false-image ought to be exposed by the LPC during a campaign; but chiefly, which is the thrust of Graves' comments. - it is presenting the electorate with a different vision of Canada is what needs to be at centre stage of the next election.

Lastly, the incompetence of Harper's ministers needs to be a pillar of a Liberal platform of good governance - Harper wants an election to revolve around HIM, it's time to shine the spotlight on the sniveling turds that occupy the other 143 seats on the governments side. These are the people doing Harper's work which is, in essence, his vision of Canada: bumbling, scandal ridden, incompetent.

The verdict: Graves had a good idea and Iggy should keep it in his back pocket and the CTF should mind their own bias and leave the statistical analysis to the statisticians and the CBC out of the debate.

UK Leadership Debate

It is not often that I wish I was British, but after watching the second UK Leadership Debate - the first ever televised debates between party leaders (Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative) - I have myself thinking "God Save the Queen!"

Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats spoke very well and I can see why his party is now leading in opinion polling. Brown sounded like Gordon Brown and the old Labour guard. Personally, he lost points with me by touting his immigration "point system" which is similar to that of Canada and Australia. The points system may bring in the most skilled foreign workers and immigrants to Canada/UK/Australia - but that does not guarantee that they will be employed in those sectors. Moreover, the point system will not deter illegal immigration of undocumented workers. Additionally, Brown's insistence on nuclear energy was thoroughly shot down by both Conservative and Liberal Democrat rebuttals.

Then there was David Cameron - a real conservative. A true Tory. I liked his thoughts on the environment; the Pope and organized religion; and government accountability - but I was put off with his final thoughts about putting the "family first" and all those other typical Republican buzzwords.

In the end, Cameron - in my opinion - won the debate and is probably poised to be the best prime minister of all three. Who has the best ideas? Nick Clegg is the most progressive of all the big three candidates and I liked a lot of the ideas and policies he put forward.

After the debate, third party leaders and representatives were interviewed in the BBC and they spoke like... well... third parties. You know the old taglines, "I couldn't put a cigarette paper between the parties;" "I didn't see a debate between these people - they're all the same;" et cetera, et cetera... Despite that the big three are all London-based, many of the third parties are regional or serve fringe interests - like leaving the EU.

If only Canadian politics was as exciting and Best wishes to all the parties, their leaders and candidates! Good Luck.

AdScam II: The Jaffer

Coming to a theatre near you...

ADSCAM II: THE JAFFER

Starring: disgraced former MP, Rahim Jaffer, as himself - the self proclaimed access point to federal government money. Also appearing: PMS Harper as the ring leader of an underworld of gangster activity and misuse of public funds; Nazim Gillani, the thread that unravels the sweater; Two anonymous businessmen, the bearers of bad news and tellers of most inconvenient truthes; Helena Guergis as heiress to lucrative government contracts; and the Conservative Party of Canada as the hypocrites of the century!

Wow.

I'm stunned. Nay, I'm elated that these two businessmen have seen the iceberg and decided to lower their lifeboat into the icy waters.

Jaffer, wines and dines investors looking for federal money - giving impassioned speeches and throwing around a business card which has the crest of the government of Canada on it and his party (and caucus) affiliation. Then this guy, Gillani - is he a partner of Jaffer? A partner of a partner of Jaffer? - touts Jaffer's ability to link investors into the government. Meanwhile, Guergis is using her position as a member of parliament to lobby her family on behalf of Jaffer's "projects"!

Today, EKOS posted a dip for both the LPC and CPC - with the Harperites retaining a small 2-point lead. Could the Jaffer insanity boil over and start to really affect the CPC's numbers? Not if the Liberals do not take a page out of Flanagan's book circa 2005. More importantly, this scandal followed by the right decision handed down by House Speaker Peter Milliken could mean a summer election.

All Iggy needs is a heap of bad Conservative press and a statistical tie to win a minority government. Casting our ballots could be closer than Harper thinks.

Jaffer denies allegations...

While admitting to drunk driving. His appearance on the Hill proved that you can take the boy out of his seat but you cannot take the seat out of the boy.

[Jaffer] said it became clear from the "vicious attack" from the media and opposition parties that the reason he was "being hauled in front of the committee"...

"All of this based on political agendas that have been playing fast and furious with people's reputations, destroying their lives without any basis in fact, and not allowing them to defend themselves appropriately," Jaffer told the committee.

Deny, deny, deny. What else were we to expect besides the predicable shenanigans of a tin-foil hat wearing talking box?

Now, onto other exciting and groundbreaking news:

• The Sun is really, really hot;
• Obama is black; and
  
• Grass is green.

Law and Order in Alberta

Remaining calm and carrying on after the "Great Rat Scare" of 2010.

It's at times like these that I bet the PCs wish they could take care of their Wildrose Alliance problem in the same way.

Flames snuffed out of playoffs

That's all she wrote, folks!

Tonight the Calgary Flames lost 2-1 to the Sharks and the Colorado Avalanche beat the Canucks 4-3 in a shootout. That is a 4 point difference between the 8th place Avs (three games remaining) and 9th place Flames (two games in regular season). With Colorado winning the season series against the Calgary club, a tie in points would go to the Avs for 8th place.

In the Flames' off-season, scoring needs to be addressed and so does the ability of Darryl Sutter to manage this team. Next up: ridding ourselves of mediocre Leafs players and regrouping as a club to contend for not only the playoffs, but the NW division.

I'm ready to forget this hockey season and turn my attention to the Jays, The World Cup, and the Roughriders' 2010 season.

Taliban Bush, Taliban Chretien, Taliban Blair, Taliban Harper...

Yikes! Afghan president Hamid Karzai has twice threatened to quit his post as top-gun and join the Taliban if Western democracies do not stop harassing the Afghan government to enact reforms and legislation.

If Jack Layton is "Taliban Jack" for supporting dialogue between the rogues and the Afghan government, what would that make all the leaders who supported a "democratically" elected, turned-Taliban Karzai?

Taliban Bush, doesn't that have a nice ring to it?

Meanwhile, Mz. Clinton wants Canada to stay in the war-torn country past it's 2011 deadline. What I'm wondering is, do the Afghans and their government want us there? That question is loaded of course, and it's answer may or may not be entirely unbiased depending on who it's coming from. Do we believe the military? Do we believe Afghan politicians? What about international journalists and area experts?

What is good for the people of Afghanistan may not be the military presence of foreign armies. What's good for the government might not be Western policy-making and political rhetoric on "democracy" "reform" and "accountability" when some of these governments have been anything but democratic and transparent to their own constituents.

Is Karzai's threat credible? Unlikely. But he's making a point: this is our country. And for all intents and purposes, we ought to respect his sovereign territory and legitimacy as a government. That being said, in a world of securitization, this may not be acceptable to anyone in the West - fearing that the Afghan government is ill equipped to smash the terrorist organizations that would organize another September 11th if given the chance. But really, is our presence doing anything to curb these feelings anyways? The jury is out.

It's time for dialogue and less rhetoric on Afghanistan. A firm deadline and political support - that's what Karzai wants and that's what he should get.

Lift Your Glad Voices!

Happy Easter blogosphere! Easter Sunday is one of my favourite days in the liturgical year for many reasons, one of them being the hymns we sing. In the Mennonite tradition, "Lift Your Glad Voices" is one of the best, if not the Easter anthem. Lift your glad voices! Christ is Risen!

Lift your glad voices in triumph on high,
For Jesus hath risen, and man cannot die;
Vain were the terrors that gathered around Him,
And short the dominion of death and the grave;
He burst from the fetters of darkness that bound Him,
Resplendent in glory to live and to save!
Loud was the chorus of angels on high,
The Savior hath risen, and man shall not die.

Glory to God, in full anthems of joy;
The being He gave us death cannot destroy:
Sad were the life we must part with tomorrow,
If tears were our birthright, and death were our end;
But Jesus hath cheered the dark valley of sorrow,
And bade us, immortal, to Heaven ascend:
Lift then your voices in triumph on high,
For Jesus hath risen, and man shall not die.

Happy Easter!