My thoughts on Mark Norris

This is a follow up to my Saturday, July 11 post. See that entry for links to the phone call I am refering to.

My past careers have included many years in call centres. As soon as Mark Norris (former, MLA, cabinet minister and also ran in the PC leadership) started to speak it was evident he was frustrated and even said as much. His tone and volume were very aggressive in nature. In a call centre a coach would say this call can go either way; the caller will completely lose their cool or if handled properly, they could be diffused.

Mark really came off sounding just plain cranky and one has to wonder why. I will look at a couple of his comments.

First when referring to where the Wildrose Alliance gets it funding from.

…….really wealthy old guys who are just pissed off.

So much can be extracted from this one statement. He seems to take issue with how wealthy people choose to spend their money. Also that they only do it because they are “just pissed off”, which implies they are doing it without any forethought or examination of where they are spending their money.

Our financial records up to the end of 2008 are public domain, now they do not show the age of contributors. However, I have had the great pleasure of speaking to most and meeting many of the contributors and I can confirm they pretty close to my age. At 46 I don’t consider myself old, but I guess if you are a young buck like Mark you might. By the way Mark is 47.

The other aspect the financials do not show is everyone who donated under $375.00; all the middle class families, just trying to get by; the students working their way through school and the truly “senior” people of Albertan who are on very tight fixed incomes. These are the grassroots supporters who send us what they can because they care and want to help us make a difference.

All of our contributors give because they have done their research; whether it is $10 or $10,000. If Albertans gave to a political party (that does not have a seat, as Mark pointed out several times) just because they were “pissed off”, well, we would be rolling in dough.


Mark Norris regarding the New Royalty Framework.

….. the is reality changes had to be made, the people of Alberta were calling for them. Stelmach did the best job he could at the time.

First of all before Eddy came up with the “Our Fair Share” the only Albertans who were calling for an increase were Liberal and NDP MLA’s. Albertans wanted change, but it was to the PC’s spending habits. Some Albertans do not even understand Royalties. They do understand a government that spends more than it takes in and how the leads to deficits. Stelmach did what he had to, to get votes. And that is not the best job he could have done at the time. Had he being doing his job (protecting Alberta and its interests) he would have looked at the things that were already impacting the O & G industry and acted accordingly.

Rather than pit Albertans against “big oil”, he could have educated Albertans on the huge benefits of having a healthy environment for the energy sector to conduct their business. Mark should heed his own words from July 2001.

I firmly believe business drives jobs. The government’s best role is to create a framework for businesses to work mostly unfettered.

Mark continues with:

I know many people in the patch who think they are better off.

I can’t deny this, I am sure there are a few, but they are just that, few and far between. I would also speculate they are better off despite Stelmach and the NRF; not because of them. Like this one. Oh look, Mark Norris is the chairman of the board. I see from their news section they have some huge sales in the United States. Good on them.


Mark on why other provinces are now doing better than Alberta.

….the reason SK, BC and MB have risen is because they all copied models we put in place 10 years ago.

Umm okay. So they are using a model we used 10 years ago; which seemed to work fine for us at the time. Now three other provinces are currently using the same model and it is working very well for them. Tell me again….why did we abandon it?

Mark says he will be back in politics, I suspect he will at least run as an MLA or maybe he will take another stab at the PC leadership. The only question remains is will he be sitting in an opposition seat when the time comes.

Mark makes several references to the Wildrose not receiving any votes or seats, not having the grassroots support, Paul Hinman losing his seat, etc, etc. I have heard this from current MLA's as well. It's like they think everything is "stuck in time"; that every day is March 3, 2008. Well there have been many days since then and there will be many more before Albertans go to the polls again.

I suggest if he only reads one short thing about us it should be this. Or maybe he has already read that, among other things.....it would explain his crankiness.

Mark Norris implodes.

Former cabinet minister of Economic Development and Tourism and an "also ran" in the PC leadership race; imploded yesterday on the Charles Adler show.

You can hear it for yourself in the audio archive of QR77, click here.

Go to Friday July 10, 2:00 PM. Interview with Kevin Libin starts at 6 minute mark and then moves to interviewing Danielle Smith. (Adler will be interviewing Mark Dryholm next week)

Norris is first caller in that segment and is very, very cranky. That is at 37:25 minute mark.

I have to run now, but in my next posts I will be giving my thoughts on Mr. Norris' tantrum and will also be following up on the "Who is Rebecca?" post.

Who is Rebecca?

A while back I had an anonymous comment and in my response I hinted that I knew where they were posting from. You can see it here. I thought that would be enough to enlighten them that they are not completely “anonymous” and since there were no subsequent comments from them on that entry… I figured they got the hint.

That is until today, when I got this second comment from the same IP.

Anonymous said...

Everyone already knows that the Wildrose Alliance is radical, extreme right wing, redneck, and far right. Now add petty to the list.

July 8, 2009 1:32 PM

Clearly a comment with no evidence to support their claim and likely intended to stir things up. Well, be careful what you wish for.


Upon further digging I have discovered that since late March this person has been all over all of my blogs. Here is a screen shot of the IP in question. (You can click on the images to them full size)

As you can see there have been multiple visits over more than one day; also no referring link, so they likely have my blog bookmarked. None of this is unusual. The interesting aspect is the source, Alberta PWSS. Which is short for Public Works Supply and Services.

Now I get a lot of hits from the Legislature and the House of Commons. However, none of them have taken the risk of posting from their publicly funded offices while they are supposed to be earning their salary. (Also courtesy of the taxpayer)

For the heck of it I Googled the IP address, it netted several results, most simply showing stats for this IP. One did confirm this IP is registered to the Government of Alberta.


Another caught my attention, I recognized a very familiar name, Kevin Taft. Of course I had to click on it and it appears to be his constituency website. Here is a close up of the relevant information.


A search for “Rebecca” within Taft’s constituency website nets 22 results of posts made from (coincidently) March to as most recently this week from the same IP.

I have tried to find exactly what they "do" at Alberta PWSS, but no luck so far. It does seem odd though that their tasks would include updating MLA’s constituency websites. I would think that task would more likely be done by staff within their own office, by an independent webmaster or even by a volunteer. (The latter being most likely for the Liberal Party)

Of course the more interesting question is why is someone from Alberta PWSS spending their workday surfing and posting on blogs at the taxpayers’ expense?

Time for a laugh....

I recently received this email from a WAP member and felt it was worth sharing the laugh.....enjoy.

MY NEW TRUCK RADIO

I bought a new GMC Sierra and returned to the dealer yesterday because I couldn't get the radio to work.

The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated.

'Nelson,' the salesman said to the radio.

The radio replied, 'Ricky or Willie?'

'Willie!' he continued and 'On The Road Again' came from the speakers.

Then he said, 'Ray Charles!', and in an instant ' Georgia On My Mind' replaced Willie Nelson.

I drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time I'd say, 'Beethoven,' I'd get beautiful classical music, and if I said, 'Beatles,' I'd get one of their awesome songs.

Yesterday, some guy ran a red light and nearly creamed my new truck, but I swerved in time to avoid them.
I yelled, 'A$$ Hole!'

Immediately the radio responded with, "Ladies and gentlemen, the premier of Alberta, Ed Stelmach."

Damn, I love this truck......

Let the debate begin

The WAP's new policy set is now posted. I challenge all those who call us "radical right-wing", "far-right", redneck, etc, etc, to illustrate exactly what gives us those labels.

Read them here.

Socons can also be libertarians

I received have received yet another anonymous comment. I seldom post them for two reasons. #1) I have developed a disdain for people who do not have the knackers to stand behind their statements. #2) they often bring the WAP into the conversation as if I somehow determine policy. I am but one member with an opinion. It carries no greater or lesser weight than another members’.

However, this one I have posted (in response to my May 26 entry) and will repeat it here as it warrants reply.

Jane

I agree with the fact the PC's have gone too far in trying to impose controls over too many things. But if the WAP is to be a force to be reckoned with we need to be careful not to overlook social conservatives as well. There are a lot of Wildrose supporters who are Fiscally conservative, but are also socially conservative and disagree with the PC fiscal side. But that does not mean they agree with the policies of PC's.

No one in my home smokes or drinks, and I feel it is not healthy and so I am not affected by the rulings on drinking and smoking. But I have a sister that owns a pub and is greatly impacted unfairly by both issues. My point is that I am a WAP supporter that disagrees with smoking and drinking personally, but disagrees with the PC stifling of the free enterprise. We cannot be on the fringes with our policy's, but we also don't want to distance those who agree fiscally but are not as moderate as others socially.

I think there is a compromise somewhere in there particularly in the rural areas where it is prevelant. Hope that makes sense and appreciate all your hard work you do.

If I have learned one thing about social conservatives over the years, (and I used to be one, but that is a post for another day) it is that even within that group there are two distinct groups.

One group has very strong convictions on two (sometimes three), very specific issues. Typically these include abortion and same sex marriage. This group not only is opposed to these things themselves; but they also feel everyone else should be opposed to them. In fact they feel so strongly about this, they want to legislate it. They feel it is the governments place to regulate morality.

The second group also has strong convictions on these issues. However the very important distinction is that they do not want to ram their beliefs down everyone’s’ throat; they do not want the government getting involved. They simply want to be free to hold their view and to be free to speak of them without fear of reprisal.

I would say over the past 30 years latter group has become by far, the larger one. Unfortunately, though all Socons get painted with the brush of the first group.

So to in response to the commenter; Stelmach has (in my opinion) started down the slippery slope of the first group. They are passing laws based on a moral compass, not on equality and freedom for all.

As for the WAP needing to find a compromise, I think we already have. We stand for protecting the freedoms of the larger group to practice their own personal beliefs and own moral convictions. And for the first smaller group, we support Citizens Initiated referenda. So if they ever get large enough to force a vote on the contentious moral issues; the means is there for them.

You know you are a political nerd when…..

...when you are watching the Legislature proceedings at 1:00 AM; worse, you are Twittering with your MLA at the same time.

It started when I noticed this comment by Dave Breakenridge.

BreakenNews @KyleMLA If people only listened to
your party they would think #bill44 is a wonderful piece of legislation.

I realized Kyle was Twittering from under dome. So the exchange started. I thought it was viewable at the time, but still being a relative newbie to Twitter they were direct messages between us.

WildroseJane: How about the voice from an everyday parent who is one of your constituents?
Vote against it Kyle. Free vote, this is your chance.

KyleMLA Jane I
did not know you were a supporter of a Nanny state over parents rights... not to
mention the ND's and Libs.

WildroseJane: I am in favor of
freedom of choice and reduction of legislation, not infringement and
duplication.

KyleMLA Freedom of choice just not for
how parents educate their children, next you will be getting rid of charter
school and private schools

WildroseJane How did you make
that leap? Freedom of choice would mean more specialized schools.

KyleMLA I agree, but feedom of choice
also has a broader context then just that, parents should also have a choice
within the public system

WildroseJane: They already do
have the choice within the public system thru the school act. You are opening up
the teachers to HRC nightmares.

KyleMLA I understand your strategic
reasoning though, have always maintained that without this clause more people
will opt out of the public system.

At this point I went to bed and then I get this one.

KyleMLA Is
your stance a personal view or one of the WRAP?

Now this is pretty sad….I responded on my BlackBerry from my bed…

WildroseJane Personal. But it is in line with our principles.

Of course I hit the wrong button and this one goes public and makes no sense whatsoever to the casual follower. And a few people called me on it today.... I mean literally called me, using a good old fashion telephone.

One of the Twitter drawbacks is that it limits you to 140 characters, making it difficult to present a reasonable argument.

Bill 44 started out so well, there were high hopes that Alberta was going to lead the way in HRC reforms.

Important reforms to the Alberta Human Rights Commission are coming -- including adding sexual orientation as a grounds of prohibited discrimination, and the removal of wording that endows the commission with censorship powers. Both reforms, especially those relating to free speech, have been strongly advocated by the Herald for some time. The government, and in particular the minister responsible-- Lindsay Blackett--is to be warmly applauded. Alberta has seen collisions between gay rights and free speech rights: Citizens will be best served by reforms that acknowledge both.

Enter Eddy with a heavy hand.

And then Premier Ed Stelmach’s government finally unveiled its proposed reforms, spinning a golden political opportunity into dross. Under the proposed Bill 44, the section prohibiting expressing ideas “likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt” goes entirely untouched, shocking freethinking Albertans and chastening Blackett.

Now the debate over the school portion of this has totally outweighed the freedom of speech issue, which has gone the way of the dinosaur. There is very little good left in what started out at such a promising step. I want to know who and where are all these people supporting it?

The liberal bloggers don’t.

The Wildrose doesn’t.

Even the usually very PC friendly bloggers don’t believe serves Albertans.

I believe this proposed Alberta Human Rights law does not elevate Alberta society, or in any way, serve the greater good. It is supposed to be a law about what we believe in and reflect positively on us as a fair-minded, inclusive, diverse and respectful society. But it is so defective in serving those core Alberta principles, rather than make us proud to be Albertan; Bill 44 makes us want to cringe.

So who are these throngs of people supporting Bill 44?