2009 FDA Reports

Quality of Life Assessment of the Jumbo Glacier Resort Project: Summary of the Jumbo Assessment: The Jumbo Glacier Resort will have a 77% overall positive impact on quality of life in the Jumbo Creek Valley and surrounding drainages. However, Pre-Resort recreationalists face a 19% overall negative impact from the Jumbo Resort on their quality of life in the Jumbo Creek Valley and surrounding drainages. The percentage of this negative impact will likely worsen due to unavoidable road and trail closures to help offset grizzly bear decline. The grizzly bear population in the Purcell Mountains is already in decline; so with the addition of the Jumbo Resort in the area, it is expected by the FDA that the decline will only worsen, which will mean significant road and trail closures to protect them. (These closures are clearly stated in the Resort’s Master Plan.) It is anticipated that Pre-Resort recreationalists will eventually reach a 0% overall negative impact due to the Jumbo Resort. Viz., the road and trail closures, and domination of the Jumbo Creek Valley by the Jumbo Resort and its thousands of recreationalists will destroy the quality of life experience of the Pre-Resort recreationalists. Similarly, the City of Invermere and surrounding areas face a 20% overall negative impact from the Jumbo Resort on their quality of life. This impact may worsen as Invermere due to increased Resort-related crime, congestion, and pollution, becomes a less attractive recreational destination. It should be noted that the Jumbo Resort will increase ski competition in the Kootenays, in an already declining industry, which may in turn cause for example the Kimberley ski hill to close. Even though such a closure would have significant quality of life implications, it is not factored into this Survey because the marketplace allows for competition, and the quality of life reduction in the Kimberley area by ski recreationalists and labour would be offset by an increase in the Invermere/Windermere area. As a final note, an issue this development process faces is the domination of the majority over the minority. The FDA thinks that the BC Liberal government is acting negligent, reckless, and shortsighted by allowing a Resort to take over an area at the expense of Pre-Resort users of the area and adjacent population centers, not to mention the significant harm the Jumbo Resort poses to the Jumbo Creek environment. Moreover, it is shameful of the BC government bureaucrats, particularly from the BC Ministries of Environment and Tourism to sidestep the issues of this proposed Resort, by basically calling for road and trail closures, which gives priority to the Resort at the expense of all the other users. In a world of increasing environmental harm, the BC Liberal government despite its rhetorical claim of adherence to sustainability is only adding to the harm. Executive Summary of the Jumbo Resort Quality of Life Assessment Full Report of the Jumbo Resort Quality of Life Assessment

Evaluation of the Three Top Afghanistan Presidential Candidates: The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) ranked and graded the three top Afghanistan Presidential candidates: 1. Hamid Karzai (23.9% grade—F grade) 2. Dr. Ghana (22.2% grade—F grade) 3. Dr. Abdullah (20% grade—F grade) F grade refers to unsatisfactory candidate in terms of representing the relevant population group. The lower the failing grade, the more unsatisfactory the candidate is. The Afghanistan presidential evaluation entailed evaluation of the candidates' backgrounds, visions for Afghanistan, incumbency record of Hamid Karzai, and the policies areas--Economic, Goverance, Social, Health, Education, Environment, and National Security. Conclusion: The very low failing grades for the three presidential candidates show that 1. Hamid Karzia, Dr. Abdullah, and Dr. Ghana are extremely unsatisfactory presidential candidates. 2. The three candidates are highly detrimental to the overall well-being of the Afghanistan people. From the perspective of the US government, the three candidates are likely extremely satisfactory since they represent US interests in Afghanistan. Overall, the fact that the US government is allowing a presidential election in a wartime situation, raises questions regarding the legitimacy of the election and the intention of the US nation building in Afghanistan. If democracy was at the forefront, the presidential election would be postponed until peaceful conditions were established. However, it is clear to the FDA that the US government is using a semblance of democracy in Afghanistan as part of its war effort. Viz., democracy is being used as a means to cover US control of the Afghanistan government and ultimately the people of Afghanistan. The failure of this policy is that the US credibility as a promoter of democracy is undermined, and any US backed government and election is deemed illegitimate under the occupation and wartime situation. An honest and democratic friendly policy would be to have a US backed interim government, until peace is established in Afghanistan. The US government and its allies are unwilling to do this, because they do not want a repeat of what the Soviet Union experienced in Afghanistan. The conclusion follows that the US and its allies should withdraw from Afghanistan, and let the people of Afghanistan decide their own future. Any threat of so-called terrorism can be handled by other means than occupation. As a final note, the 20% voter turnout in this election, the rampant electoral corruption, and the failed run-off election supports the FDA's conclusion that the 2009 Afghan Presidential election is counter to the spirit of democracy--governance of, by, for the people. The Western political system as a whole faces a similar low voter turnout though not as drastic; so it may not be too surprising that the American government and its allies supports the Afghan electoral process and its results. The standard for democracy is low in the West. 2009 Afghan Election Report

2009 Canadian Elections FDA Reports

2007/2008 FDA Reports