Hoghead Training

Lesson #1:

Two miles is only two minutes at 60 mph.

Lesson #2:

There's no cocky at at "Clear to Stopee."

Lesson #3:

Don't forget your thermos lid.

No Cocky at a Clear to Stop

For the last five weeks I've been training to become a locomotive engineer. At 48 years old I don't want to seem like a kid, but sitting at the throttle on a giant diesel locomotive with a 13,000 ton train behind me is pretty exciting stuff.

The first three weeks of training were in the classroom and the closest I got to running a train was sitting at a simulator console looking at a computer generated screen. It was interesting enough, but it wasn't really until I kicked the brakes off a real train and let it start rolling downhill toward a signal that the power and responsibility of it all started to click.

I was lucky on my first couple of trips; I had relatively light trains during daylight hours and I could see where I was going... and the lay of the land. That gave me a sense of the speed and power of a train that I'd never had before as a conductor... sitting in the 'other seat.'

Although there have already been a lot of lessons, the most impressed on me so far are:

1. At 60 mph, two miles is only two minutes (as obvious as that is... it now means something completely different to me).

2. There's 'no cocky at a clear to stop' (for non railroaders this won't mean much).

3. You gotta make the train do what you want it to do (I'm still working on what this really means and how to do it... but I like the idea of being in control of the train rather than letting it control me).

4. I gotta learn to trust the equipment; it will stop if I do things when I should.

It's been a long road standing near the tracks at my grandma's house as a six-year old, with a lot of detours... but doing this really something I've always wanted to do... and to be honest... I kind of feel like I'm six again.

Enough of Ed

Okay, I will come clean!

I bought a provincial Progressive Conservative membership back in 2006 so that I could vote for... yikes... Ed Stelmach. At the time, I thought he was the best candidate out of the bunch, and the only one who appeared to want to reach out to others.

Okay, okay, even back in 2006, I recognised Ed was not the most articulate of the leadership candidates. But maybe that wasn't a bad thing, I thought. We'd had an era of leadership from a guy who was a "pro" at handling the media and speaking to people. After Ralphie, maybe having a shy guy who would stay at his desk working rather than running around the planet shooting his mouth off might not be such a bad thing.

Well, I guess I was wrong. After watching the lacklustre informercial our premier bought with our money, I admit defeat. Ed Stelmach may still be a nice earnest guy, but he doesn't have what it takes to lead Alberta.

With Danielle Smith looking as if she will win the leadership of the Wild Rose Alliance Party (WAP), it looks like it is going to be a very interesting November. On the 7th, the Progressive Conservatives will vote (in a secret ballot) whether to keep Ed Stelmach on as leader or not. My guess is that if they do, this will be the last PC government this province will ever see. If they vote non-confidence and then go on to select a new leader, then the whole scene will become more interesting because they may survive but split the right vote and leave more Liberals and NDs in the legislature and Alberta will have a real democracy... with different parties and all.

Either way... wow.

Come out, come out, wherever you are!

Prime Minister Harper will announce the next Quarterly Economic Report Card from New Brunswick on Wednesday, September, 30. He will announce it not from the House of Commons in Ottawa, but far away from the media pundits most likely to ask the toughest questions. By announcing the Report Card from an out-of-the-spotlight location Mr. Harper gets to swoop in below the radar and hide the statistics that show his much vaunted stimulus programme is not working.

Recently, Prime Minister Harper has become quite adept at avoiding the tough issues facing Canada and the world. He is playing to his base of supporters while ignoring the most pressing issues on the planet. The economy of the country is in crisis but our prime minister is nowhere to be found. The leaders of the world showed up last week at the General Assembly of the United Nations but Mr. Harper chose instead to cut the ribbon at Tim Horton's opening in Ontario, where he talked of the importance of a Double-Double on cold mornings at the rink.

Iran is hiding nuclear processing plants and test-firing missiles... the world is facing perhaps its greatest climate threat ever... the world economy is still in tatters... Afghanistan is withering... and our prime minister is avoiding the issues in a practiced way. What happened to the Stephen Harper who used to tell it like it is... I mean was?

The fact of the matter is things are not going that well for Canada, and Mr. Harper knows it. What he is patently trying to do his best to stay out of the line of fire while "playing the heart-strings" of his party base. He doesn't want us to start noticing things are not better than they were four years ago when he took the reins of power. His goal is to lull us into a sense that... "sure, things may not be perfect, but we are still pretty well off." He is doing this because he plans on having an election... and soon. He might not get one before the Vancouver Olympics in February, 2010 but it won't be much longer than that. Those pesky socialists and separatists keep supporting his government, even though he really wants to run against the Liberals right now... when they are still weak and disorganised.

Mr. Harper has been consistently vague and misleading about telling Canadians what the Federal deficit really is and why. He has played his hand politically and at the detriment of Canada and Canadians. This is a very serious time for this country... for our own affairs and to secure our place at the global table. Yet Mr. Harper recently faded into the shadows; he stays in the in the dark because he knows if Canadians hear the truth about our economic situation and our deteriorating place in various world rankings, we might start to question why. The answers to those questions will not cast Mr. Harper and his party in a very positive light. It's true that there are no obvious leaders ready to take Canada into a non-partisan political future... not from within the Liberal Party of the NDP, but Mr. Harper knows full well that his government's performance will not stand up to hard scrutiny. That's why he is laying low... waiting for the next election... trying to lull us into a state of well-being that simply is not reality.

If we escape an election call this week (and that seems increasingly likely), look for Mr. Harper to keep avoiding the limelight and staying off centre-stage. And isn't that odd for a man who until now has stood at the center of every single policy his party has ever announced.

Yoo-hoo, Stevie... come out, come out, wherever you are.

Dodged a Bullet

Canadians were lucky to escape a summer election. We may yet be lucky enough to escape one this autumn. But make no mistake, even if we dodge a fall bullet, there’s a federal election coming to a polling station near you within the year. Canadians who follow the political scene may understand why the possibility of another election so soon after the October, 2009 exists, but for most people, it really doesn’t make sense to be having elections every year, especially when they cost more than $300 million a shot.

The latest threat of election is coming from the Liberal Party, which senses it has better chance to form a government if there is an election soon rather than waiting. The Conservatives argue there is no need for an election and that the opposition parties need to work with the government to make this session of parliament work.

Huh?

Wasn’t it just eleven months ago that Prime Minister Harper called an election three years early because he sensed he might be able to win a majority government? In most parliamentary democracies (like Canada’s) elections are held every four or five years. Even with minority governments, other countries can make things work because parties cooperate with one another. Here in Canada we are controlled by a tyranny of two parties that cannot bring themselves from playing political power games with Canadians rather than to put the good of the country first.

In fact, in order to call last year’s election Prime Minister Harper broke a law passed back in 2006 that required federal elections to be held on the third Monday in October, in the fourth calendar year after a previous election unless the opposition brings down the government. Last year, without the government being brought down, Mr. Harper simply dissolved parliament and went to the polls where nothing changed much anyway.

Now Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff says he won’t support the government under any circumstance and will send Canadians back to the polls as soon as he can. Unless either the NDP or the Bloc Quebec support the Conservatives over the next few months, the government will fall and we will have to go back to the voting booth very soon.

Did you get that? In order for the Conservatives to survive, they will need the help of either the “separatists” or the “socialists.” If you have been following this “Keystone Cops” political situation, you will remember that the Conservatives and their supporters went ballistic last December when the Liberals and NDP proposed a coalition that had the agreement of the Bloc Quebec not to vote against said coalition for 18 months. Back in December, the separatists and the socialists were bad. Now they are “part of the democratic” process.

Huh?

Where the hell did the integrity go? How did we find ourselves with politicians that put themselves first at every opportunity? Why do so many of us blindly support one side over the other when it is apparent that neither side is out for the betterment of this country or to support everyday Canadians? If we are ever to get passed this partisanship that is destroying Canada, we “little people” have to get back involved in the process and demand that the politicians we choose to support act with more integrity than we have seen lately.

When this election comes… and come it will… the Conservatives are going to tell us that it is unnecessary and that the Liberals are selfish and uncaring power hungry rats. Take that with a large grain of salt and remember October, 2008, when Prime Minister Harper broke a law his own government enacted just so he could seek a majority parliament. This next election is our opportunity to hold the politicians’ feet to the fire and demand they act with more honor and integrity. It will also be an opportunity to listen to policy and decide on the character of candidates by the virtue of their words and their conduct rather than the party banner they run under. Next election, it’s time for all of us to perform our role in this democracy of ours.

Vote for Democracy

Now that we are all wondering about a potential federal election this fall (again), people are asking me if I will run as the Green candidate in the constituency of Vegreville-Wainwright.

The answer to that is... Yes! No one else wanted to do it.

One young man in my little hamlet (not old enough to vote last October... but who attended the candidates' forum) told me that although he feels I am/was the best candidate, he could not vote for me because he feels that a Green vote is a wasted vote.

While I empathise with this young man wanting his first vote to mean something, the logic of not voting for a candidate because the candidate doesn't appear to be the one that is going to be elected serves no purpose. In fact, it is totally in opposition to what democracy means.

As a candidate for the Green Party in the east central part of Alberta, the chance I will be elected is slim. Why do I run then? I run because democracy does not... WILL NOT... work if we do not all stand up and take part in honest, open, respectful discourse about what we want this country to be. If Canadians buy into the unhealthy idea that it is only the Liberals or the Conservatives that can govern, we are on the road to destroying the democracy we say we hold dearly.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives hold their members in line with strict discipline. Voice any sort dissenting views in either of those parties... and out you go. It is "tow the line" or leave the party, which doesn't allow for regional perspectives in the House of Commons. We have gone from a representative democracy to an oligarchic system where the views of a few are foist upon the many under the guise of a democratic process.

Although I am a Green Party candidate, I don't agree with every Green policy. But that is the magic of this party. All candidates can differ on points of policy to some degree and this party is okay with that. The Green Party wants me to be accountable firstly to the people I will represent... to the people in my community... to the culture of my community... to the traditions of my community. The Green Party allows for the democratic process to move to a place where the will of individuals and the representatives they elect to make their honest views part of our democratic debate.

Running in a federal election costs me a great deal: time away from my family... my farm... my volunteer activities and my job (ie. my salary). It costs me in a big way, but I do it because I want the democratic process to work. I want to give people options. When I hear people (particularly young people) tell me they won't vote for me even if they think I am the best candidate simply because they perceive my electability as low... I am truly saddened. How did they come to view democracy in such a cynical way?

Democracy demands we vote for who we believe best represents the voices we want heard in Parliament. To do anything else is dishonest... to Canada... to our communities... and to ourselves.

Elizabeth May in Saanich-Gulf Islands

Within the federal Green Party there is a growing debate about whether leader Elizabeth May has the moral credentials to "parachute" into the riding to become the Green candidate in the next election. Another Green Party member--Stuart Hertzog, also not from the riding--is contesting the nomination based on his assertion that the Green Party is a grassroots party and thus the decision to have Ms May run in the riding came from the top and is thus not "green."

The following is a slightly modified version of what I wrote as a comment on a blog discussion about the issue. It has been modified to read as a stand alone piece for the benefit of anyone who is not acquainted with the original debate or the discussion in general.
------------

I am one of the “blue-greens” people talk about when they try to distinguish differing points of views within the Green Party. I’m a middle-aged farmer trying to take care of my little piece of the planet, and having an ever increasingly difficult time. I used to consider myself a Progressive Conservative, but when issues of the environment led me to change priorities (and the PCs disappeared), I became a Green supporter.

I was first welcomed into the "Green" fold by people who were happy I'd become a 'convert' but later told (and often) that I am not “green” enough by long-term “fundis” (not my choice of words). Often, "fundis" believe that the objective of getting elected and thus having to work within a political system they see as tainted is offensive, and that it is better to simply advocate for the change they see as necessary to save the planet. "Realos" tend to be more pragmatic and recognise the necessity of getting "down and dirty" within the process and scrapping with those in power to get a seat at the table. To us (cause I guess I am a "Realo"), this seems logical.

This schism now has Greens divided about whether Elizabeth May's style of leadership is too "top-down" and thus unworthy of the label Green and that it is simply selfish for her to lead the party in the direction of getting her elected to Parliament.

While I think Mr. Hertzog has every right to challenge Ms. May for the Green candidacy in Saanich-Gulf Islands, I am perplexed by the notion of some Greens who become involved with the Green Party as a political party yet are un-fussed about electing MPs/MLAs/MNAs. The idea of being a movement over a political party leaves me scratching my head.

I see this as politically dishonest: asking voters for support… and especially for money. The call, “Vote for me… I’m happy not to be elected because I believe I am morally superior to the whole dirty business of politics” is simply asking for failure. Taking money for that endeavour, or asking people to volunteer their lives to the effort is just dumb to me… but then again, I’m not an academic or a philosopher.

I cannot believe that people like myself… who still believe individuals have enough integrity to make a positive difference in our political system are somehow simply naive, or that we miss the point of the scale of change necessary to “save the planet.”

I believe getting elected is a first step in our system. Ignoring this fact will not get us the chance to participate in the system, and we will never get a chance to explain our perspectives in the halls of political power. By not getting elected, we cast ourselves into oblivion.

The idea that enough of the electorate would vote for a party that does not see getting elected as the first priority is “pie-in-the-sky” and without integrity to support the ideas we believe in.

This seems more like the same partisan politics that has become the Canadian reality. Greens are fond of saying this party is not about left vs right. It is an attractive motto, however, this party is taking on the shades of “realo” vs “fundi” which is simply the same crap, re-branded, and what is worse, it will hurt the Green cause politically.

I see Elizabeth May as one step in a process to get a Green voice in the House of Commons. She has brought the Green Party a certain cache and certainly more visibility among a larger group of Canadians. I see her as a bridge between the “fundis” and the “realos.”

All arguments aside about the wisdom of running against Peter McKay last time, I am certain Ms. May will run to win in the next election. Win or lose, she will face a leadership review in 2010. That is the time for challengers to mount arguments to replace her. Of course those arguments need to be heard. If someone comes around to inspire more confidence then we will get the chance to choose a new leader.

Until then (and as a “blue-green”) I think it is acceptable for the leader of a political party to run in a winnable riding. Indeed, I think it is an obligation. For my own part, what I find rather mystifying is this continuing idea that the Green Party is above winning or losing. If one believes that, wouldn’t it be better (and more honest) to stay totally engaged in activist activity?