Gimmie those old time conventions

By GERRY WARNER
Cranbrook Daily Townsman
Nov. 24, 2006
In 1965, George Grant wrote Lament for a Nation, a passionate paean about Canadian nationalism and how our political system pales when compared to the more dynamic way politics is done south of the border.
Well, I'm doing a little lamenting of my own these days because a Great Canadian Institution is about to expire. I'm talking, of course, about nasty, dirty, boozy, wheeling and dealing political conventions done properly in smoky backrooms where the candidates are forced to sweat blood for every last vote and there's none of this superficial one-person; one vote, pseudo electronic democracy where everyone votes by Power Point or some other equally inane Microsoft voting method.
That's not the way politics is supposed to be done.
And I say amen to the Federal Liberal Party of Canada for having the guts and the integrity to stage one last corrupt, but glorious and traditional leadership convention in Montreal Dec.1 to pick their new leader who won't be Michael Ignatieff. Yes, yes, I know Ignatieff is the front-runner now, but when the hoopla is over, the booze stops flowing and the smoke clears the Liberals will have elected someone that will likely knock off Stephen Harper next spring. But that someone will not be Ignatieff, the renowned Harvard academic whose political instincts have been dulled by too many years in the ivory tower and too many years outside of Canada.
Trust me. I've attended a few political conventions over the years and the stars are not lined up for Ignatieff. Take your pick of Rae, Dion or Kennedy. One of those three will be the next Liberal Party leader, and if they play their cards with any skill at all, the next Prime Minister of Canada.
But enough of that. Instead, let me relate a few reasons about why I prefer a corrupt, but traditional leadership convention to the oh so pure (but not really) electronic upstart. To begin, I'm not talking about corrupt in the criminal sense that lands you in jail, but "corrupt" in the political way like we've recently seen with the delegate selection process for sending local Liberals to the Montreal convention. And don't get me wrong. I too would have preferred to see the Kootenay-Columbia Liberal slate represented by loyal Liberals from the riding, but that's not the way it's done in politics, especially leadership politics which is politics at its purest and Machiavellian best.
Unfortunately you don't become leader by being a nice guy. On the rare occasions you do, you end up with someone like Robert Stanfield, the best prime minister Canada never had or Jimmy Carter, one of the best recent presidents of the United States even if few Americans realize it. (And if the world had been able to vote in the 2004 election, John Kerry would be president of the U.S. today, but his niceness couldn't overcome the deadly combination of George Bush and Karl Rove.)
So if nothing else, traditional old-time political conventions tend to produce strong leaders because you have to be an alpha-type leader to win at knock them down, drag 'em out conventions. Keep in mind that strong doesn't necessarily mean "best." One of the first Canadian political leaders elected by the electronic, one-member, one vote method was Stockwell Day, who turned out to be a disaster. Conversely the traditional, old time, corrupt leadership conventions don't always elect the best leaders either. I should know because I participated in one in 1986 that produced a "faaaaantastic" leader who went on to destroy his party, Bill Vander Zalm.
But what a convention!
I remember the morning I had three breakfasts, the booze that was forced on me everyday, the back-stabbing and deal making that went on in the smoky back rooms. (And the back rooms were smoky in those days.) I remember JackWebster and Phil Gaglardi sitting side-by-side glaring at each other unable to hide their mutual contempt. I remember a future Prime Minister of Canada, Kim Campbell, uttering the famous lines: "style without substance is a dangerous thing." Campbell's lines were aimed directly at Vander Zalm and were part of an orchestrated attempt to bring the convention leader down. But it didn't happen because there was something in the air at that convention and nothingwas going to stop it.
Love of The Zalm.
I first realized it when I encountered a Vander Zalm supporter at the convention and chided him for supporting someone who believed in "simple solutions to complex problems." To which the supporter in blue jeans and cowboy boots, drew himself up to his full height, and virtually bellowed at me: "Well, I happen to like simple solutions to complex problems!
At that precise moment any doubt in my mind about the winner of that convention evaporated. It was an epiphany, a magic moment, the kind that can only occur at old time, traditional, political conventions.
I'm going to miss them.
-- 30 --

We can do better on global warming

By GERRY WARNER
Cranbrook Daily Townsman
Nov. 17, 2006
It's been called the biggest challenge facing mankind, yet there are skeptics that deny it exists. But the voices of the skeptics are growing fainter every day as the evidence of global warming becomes overwhelming. Numerous stories in the past few months paint a grim scenario of a planet with a bad fever.
The Dead Sea is drying up. Yes, the Biblical site of Sodom and Gomorrah is dropping more than a metre every year and former beach-front resorts are now more than a mile from the water. It's the same sad story for the Aral Sea which has dropped so much in recent years that it's started to break up into separate bodies of water. Water diverted for agriculture has been blamed in both cases but many scientists insist the real culprit is global warming.
Meanwhile the North Sea is warming up, according to a study by the German government. The heavily-used waterway studded with oil drilling platforms was 2.4 C warmer in October than it's ever been before. During a July heatwave, it rose a startling 4.1 C and has yet to cool off to its normal temperature. Then there was the shocking story a few weeks ago predicting that the ocean's fish stocks could collapse within our lifetime. The story was based on a study reported in the journal Science where a team of Canadian and American scientists did the first comprehensive study of world-wide fishfood stocks and found that 29 species of fish are already on the verge of collapse, like the Grand Banks cod, and the rest of the food stock fishery could be gone by mid-century. "There is an end in sight and it's within our lifetime," said lead author Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax.
Some of you may have seen the recent showing in town of "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary on global warming by former U.S. presidential candidate Al Gore which has now been nominated for an Academy Award. The film showed giant chunks of ice breaking off the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland and glacial valleys in the Swiss Alps where the ice has retreated over the last 100 years and the valleys are now lush and green. Which brings up the great paradox (two of them actually) of the global warming issue. If ice-covered valleys are turning lush and green again is global warming necessairly a bad thing? And given the fact that Greenland was once green when the Vikings lived there, to what degree is climate change a natural phenomena and to what degree is it caused by the carbon-spewing factories of mankind?
I don't think anybody can say with certainty they know the answers to either of these questions. So where does that leave us? How about erring on the side of caution? Only the most Neanderthal of thinker would deny the world is warming up. As already pointed out, the evidence of climate change is overwhelming. What we don't know is how much of global warming is caused by natural means and how much is caused by man. But does it really matter? Quite likely the global warming we're now experiencing is being caused by both natural and man-made factors. The real issue is that it's happening and it has the potential to wreak havoc on a world-wide scale. We, of course, can't do anything about the natural factors causing global warming, but it's manifestly within our powers to do something about the man-made factors.
So how are we doing? Not too well actually if we're talking about Canada as a nation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Canada ranks second in the world in per capita carbon dioxide emissions tied with Australia and second only to the U.S. Man-made carbon-dioxide emissions are acknowedged by almost everyone as the primary cause of the green house effect which is believed to be the main factor contributing to human-caused global warming. It was this this fact more than anything else that led to the Kyoto Protocol, which laid down conditions and specific limits for countries producing green house gases. Canada, under the previous Liberal government signed on to Kyoto, but under the current Conservative administration we are walking away from it. This doesn't exactly make one proud to be a Canadian. The Conservatives have criticized Kyoto for allowing "carbon trading" and other means for heavily industrialized countries like Canada to get around the carbon limits the treaty prescribes and these may well be legitimate criticisms. But what are the Conservatives offering in place of Kyoto? A Clean Air Act that will allow "business (pollution) as usual" with no specific carbon-reduction targets for as much as 40 years.
Surely we can do better than this?
-- 30 --