Hall and Oats
Elton John
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Happy fucking birthday indeed, Helena
You delicate flower.
The tautologically-challenged Helena Guergis issued a written statement Thursday saying she was "rushing to catch a flight" last week and "spoke emotionally" to airport staff.
Let’s help her with the truth, shall we? (emphasis mine) According to a letter (and obviously supported since Guergis saw the need to do what few CONs do: issue an apology) -
...Guergis and an aide were at the Air Canada ticket counter five minutes before the flight was to depart and they were "being so difficult and rude" they were almost denied permission to board. They berated (the ticket agent) loudly and treated him in a most condescending manner after he told them some of their excessive bags were too large to be carry-on and should be checked.
At security screening...Guergis initially refused to remove her boots, which set off the metal detector. She then "huffily" removed her boots, "slammed" them into a bin and groused to the security screener: "Happy f**king birthday to me. I guess I'm stuck on this hell hole. (P.E.I.)"
Guergis is correct in stating her behaviour was inappropriate. If you or I tried that at an airport, we would at the very least be removed from the airport to find another way home. This behaviour is especially horrendous coming from a Minister. It is abusive, and shows contempt for the Atlantic province.
Guergis’ show of contempt did not stop there, either. She goes on to show contempt for people who are simply trying to do their job.
Told at one point that she should have checked in at least two hours before her flight's departure time, the writer says Guergis shouted: "I don't need to be lectured about flight time by you. I've been down here working my ass off for you people."
The very day that Baird announced Canadians will have to pay a higher airport security tax to make us all safer, Guergis helps him out by showing all of Canada how unstable people can become disruptive and violate security at airports.
Once she cleared security, Guergis allegedly tried to force open a locked door from the pre-boarding area on to the tarmac, where her plane was waiting. Told to wait for an Air Canada representative, Guergis and her aide instead began "screaming and hammering on the soundproof tinted glass that separates pre-board from airside," apparently hoping to catch the attention of an airline representative.
In the world of the CONs, it seems, laws are only meant for those people the members work their asses off for in various hell holes around the country.
Simple solution to your frustration with Canadians, Helena. If you resent the work so much and have such contempt for people you claim to work for, just quit. It’s not like we’d miss you.
A long history of discrimination + Cuts to the social safety net + Failure to provide basic services like legal aid, affordable housing and childcare + lack of investment in sectors of the economy employing any significant number of women + bargaining away fundamental rights like pay equity = women highly vulnerable to violence and poverty, rendered invisible and voiceless.
And the PMO’s reaction? Predictable:
When contacted by CBC News, the Prime Minister's Office said it was "satisfied" with her apology, and that it "closes the matter."
Well, the matter is hardly closed for all Canadians. Guergis, like other elected politicians, is supposed to work for the people of Canada. Guergis did not, as she is trying now to say speak emotionally. She was verbally abusive to people who were trying to do their job, and she violated security procedures at an airport. An apology doesn’t cut it. Such behaviour is not written off for anyone else at airports because we are all expected to respect the rights of others and follow security procedures. An MP who has so little control over their own actions should not be instrumental in shaping laws for others.
Let’s help her with the truth, shall we? (emphasis mine) According to a letter (and obviously supported since Guergis saw the need to do what few CONs do: issue an apology) -
...Guergis and an aide were at the Air Canada ticket counter five minutes before the flight was to depart and they were "being so difficult and rude" they were almost denied permission to board. They berated (the ticket agent) loudly and treated him in a most condescending manner after he told them some of their excessive bags were too large to be carry-on and should be checked.
At security screening...Guergis initially refused to remove her boots, which set off the metal detector. She then "huffily" removed her boots, "slammed" them into a bin and groused to the security screener: "Happy f**king birthday to me. I guess I'm stuck on this hell hole. (P.E.I.)"
Guergis is correct in stating her behaviour was inappropriate. If you or I tried that at an airport, we would at the very least be removed from the airport to find another way home. This behaviour is especially horrendous coming from a Minister. It is abusive, and shows contempt for the Atlantic province.
Guergis’ show of contempt did not stop there, either. She goes on to show contempt for people who are simply trying to do their job.
Told at one point that she should have checked in at least two hours before her flight's departure time, the writer says Guergis shouted: "I don't need to be lectured about flight time by you. I've been down here working my ass off for you people."
The very day that Baird announced Canadians will have to pay a higher airport security tax to make us all safer, Guergis helps him out by showing all of Canada how unstable people can become disruptive and violate security at airports.
Once she cleared security, Guergis allegedly tried to force open a locked door from the pre-boarding area on to the tarmac, where her plane was waiting. Told to wait for an Air Canada representative, Guergis and her aide instead began "screaming and hammering on the soundproof tinted glass that separates pre-board from airside," apparently hoping to catch the attention of an airline representative.
In the world of the CONs, it seems, laws are only meant for those people the members work their asses off for in various hell holes around the country.
Simple solution to your frustration with Canadians, Helena. If you resent the work so much and have such contempt for people you claim to work for, just quit. It’s not like we’d miss you.
A long history of discrimination + Cuts to the social safety net + Failure to provide basic services like legal aid, affordable housing and childcare + lack of investment in sectors of the economy employing any significant number of women + bargaining away fundamental rights like pay equity = women highly vulnerable to violence and poverty, rendered invisible and voiceless.
And the PMO’s reaction? Predictable:
When contacted by CBC News, the Prime Minister's Office said it was "satisfied" with her apology, and that it "closes the matter."
Well, the matter is hardly closed for all Canadians. Guergis, like other elected politicians, is supposed to work for the people of Canada. Guergis did not, as she is trying now to say speak emotionally. She was verbally abusive to people who were trying to do their job, and she violated security procedures at an airport. An apology doesn’t cut it. Such behaviour is not written off for anyone else at airports because we are all expected to respect the rights of others and follow security procedures. An MP who has so little control over their own actions should not be instrumental in shaping laws for others.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Who should the public service bureaucrats be loyal to?
Not, as James Travers says, the government of the day.
Perhaps it is simply imprecise word choice on his part, or lack of expanding on his statement, but these lines do not help people understand the non-partisan nature of the public service, nor why it is necessary to respect that the public service serves the public, not the elected government:
Certainly the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat loyalty.
No, it doesn’t. While it is the duty of the public service to forward government’s will as directed by the Minister in charge (with the exception of the independent agencies who do not have a Minsiter), it is not a question of loyalty. They serve Canada and Canadians, and must fulfill the elected government’s orders within the boundaries of their mandates and as directed by existing legislation which defines the responsibilities of an independent public service.
It would be more accurate to say that the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat cooperation and respect for the acts outlining the responsibilities of public servants.
For the public service, it is not at all (and should never be) an issue of loyalty, but of a committment and dedication to following the rules by which they are bound, regardless of who holds the most seats in Parliament. These rules and acts were developed by all of Parliament, over many, many sessions. They are regularly updated and adjusted as public needs change. Never should they be altered to accommodate the goals of a particular party in power.
If the public service was expected to shift loyalties to accommodate elected governments, there would be no stability in the public service and long term planning would be a waste of time.
Travers is also incorrect in what he says about the rights of Prime Ministers when it comes to public servants:
Prime ministers have as much right to set their administration's tone as they have to expect the bureaucracy to execute government's will.
The statement is a little vague, saying that one right is equal to the other, without really defining the range of those rights, but implying that they are considerable.
Yes, the Prime Minister does have some leeway in setting the tone in departments, but once more, existing policies limit that right to safeguard against any PM using public services to forward their own political agendas. We have already seen many cases of abuse of such policies, especially with the harper government - using public service sites to launch attack ads, changing the look of departmental sites so that they appear clones of the CPC ones, ignoring Treasury Board guidelines and introducing terms such as Harper’s Government rather than the Government of Canada.
After all, democracy demands that mandarins advise, ministers decide. Still, enforced silence and reflex compliance are anathemas to the openness and intellectual argy-bargy that are essential to the creation of effective policies that put the nation on the most beneficial course.
Yes. Travers is correct on that point. And by clouding the accountability and the independence of the public service by saying the government of the day has every right to expect (its) loyalty, Travers feeds the very thing he decries: enforced silence and reflex compliance would be the result of loyalty to governments of the day.
Perhaps it is simply imprecise word choice on his part, or lack of expanding on his statement, but these lines do not help people understand the non-partisan nature of the public service, nor why it is necessary to respect that the public service serves the public, not the elected government:
Certainly the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat loyalty.
No, it doesn’t. While it is the duty of the public service to forward government’s will as directed by the Minister in charge (with the exception of the independent agencies who do not have a Minsiter), it is not a question of loyalty. They serve Canada and Canadians, and must fulfill the elected government’s orders within the boundaries of their mandates and as directed by existing legislation which defines the responsibilities of an independent public service.
It would be more accurate to say that the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat cooperation and respect for the acts outlining the responsibilities of public servants.
For the public service, it is not at all (and should never be) an issue of loyalty, but of a committment and dedication to following the rules by which they are bound, regardless of who holds the most seats in Parliament. These rules and acts were developed by all of Parliament, over many, many sessions. They are regularly updated and adjusted as public needs change. Never should they be altered to accommodate the goals of a particular party in power.
If the public service was expected to shift loyalties to accommodate elected governments, there would be no stability in the public service and long term planning would be a waste of time.
Travers is also incorrect in what he says about the rights of Prime Ministers when it comes to public servants:
Prime ministers have as much right to set their administration's tone as they have to expect the bureaucracy to execute government's will.
The statement is a little vague, saying that one right is equal to the other, without really defining the range of those rights, but implying that they are considerable.
Yes, the Prime Minister does have some leeway in setting the tone in departments, but once more, existing policies limit that right to safeguard against any PM using public services to forward their own political agendas. We have already seen many cases of abuse of such policies, especially with the harper government - using public service sites to launch attack ads, changing the look of departmental sites so that they appear clones of the CPC ones, ignoring Treasury Board guidelines and introducing terms such as Harper’s Government rather than the Government of Canada.
After all, democracy demands that mandarins advise, ministers decide. Still, enforced silence and reflex compliance are anathemas to the openness and intellectual argy-bargy that are essential to the creation of effective policies that put the nation on the most beneficial course.
Yes. Travers is correct on that point. And by clouding the accountability and the independence of the public service by saying the government of the day has every right to expect (its) loyalty, Travers feeds the very thing he decries: enforced silence and reflex compliance would be the result of loyalty to governments of the day.
Friday, February 19, 2010
I don't want to fund a god's plan, do you?
Seems Vic Toews doesn’t agree. At least when it comes to Youth For Christ, a religious group passing itself off as a youth centre for troubled kids.
Their own mission statement makes it very clear that their agenda is a religious one, extending to mixing church and state.
With a focus on junior and senior high school ministries, YFC Canada aims to take the gospel to the youth of the nation and trust God to surface leaders for the future who can become part of His plan for our nation.
This group doesn’t just want to take the gospel to the kiddies, it is actively targeting what it views as vulnerable groups.
Strategy - ...Expanding chapter ministries: "YFC will boldly move into areas where we do not now exist, both geographically and culturally. The aboriginal youth community is a prime area for development."
Yeppers. Boldly braving hostile lands and dangerous cultures.
I find it more than a little obscene that the very religion that abused aboriginals and committed cultural genocide now seeks to use them to suppress the rights of all Canadians by imposing their religiously driven morality on all citizens through changing our laws according to a two thousand year old book written by several patriarchal types and loosely interpreted by whoever happens to claim to have insight into the will of a non-existent being. Whew! Long sentence, yes, but that happens when you try to give clarity to something as nonsensical as a god’s will.
We are committed to a journey of faith fully trusting our Lord to supply the resources and strategies to impact the youth of Canada.
I have trouble believing that this group faithfully trusts their lord to supply resources - for two reasons: first off, I don’t believe in gods.
Secondly: I apparently jabbered in my sleep last night, and what one of my co-pilots took to be nonsense must have been in fact, a magic spell because some god or other monster (which I don’t believe in) later directed me to read this article and made me read these very lines:
Toews said Youth For Christ's evangelism was irrelevant to the funding process, although CBC reports one of the group's directors contributed to his political campaign.
So with family values Vic Toews’ palms coincidentally greased,
The Conservative government in Ottawa and Winnipeg's city council are poised to help non-profit Youth For Christ build an $11.7-million, 50,000-square-foot youth centre at the northwest corner of Higgins Avenue and Main Street.
Seems the holy partisan patronage invisible sky monster worked some more magic for his faithful:
That plan, which faces a council vote on Feb. 24, is being lambasted by two opposition councillors and MP Martin, who claim it was rushed through city hall, contravenes Winnipeg's recreation policy and effectively shuts out other inner-city organizations.
"Councillors received one page of information about this. It was walked onto (executive policy committee) a week before we have to vote on this. It didn't go through the proper process," said Gerbasi, who shares Martin's concerns about the evangelistic aims of Youth For Christ.
Transcona Coun. Russ Wyatt said it's unfair to give millions to Youth For Christ without even a report from city staff, when the city makes dozens of small community organizations jump through procedural hoops to obtain small amounts of public funding.
I wonder - had the group had been named Youth For Allah, Boys For Buddha or Kids For Krishna, would it have received such funding as easily, or rather, at all? (Yes, that is a rhetorical question)
I was thinking...for just under 7 mill, I could be persuaded to start a youth group as well.
Been thinking of Kids For Cthulhu.
It would offer extensive challenges:
Cthulhu really has that tough guy image working for him as well. That's very popular, lately.
Best of all, there’s some terrific Cthulhu rock to lure in the youngsters:
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Look! Look!!!!! Look at me, how tough I am!!!!
They are the ones who buy expensive showy cars so that others will notice them. Their sense of their own existence is determined as how they see themselves reflected in others eyes. They constantly position themselves where they will be noticed, and their actions are meant to garner praise, admiration, and awe.
They feel real only when they believe they are affecting the lives of others. They talk tough, like they are in control all the time, like they are a force to be reckoned with, like they are a man’s man.
Their language always gives them away.
"The entire planet has been able to witness that Canada is now a major actor when it's time to intervene in natural disasters," Harper said.
So is that why we are helping Haiti? So the entire planet can witness our greatness? The disaster, it seems, is but an opportunity for Stevo to flex the countries big, tough, muscles.
And tough we are, according to him.
The purchase and use of C-17 transport planes is an example of the "hard power" requirements of the type of relief work soldiers are now doing in Haiti, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said during a tour of the country.
We used to be wimps, he tells his audience (presumably the entire planet), back when those soft on everything Liberals ran the show. Hell, even Canada’s policies were soft.
Harper said there was a "time when that kind of heavy-lift aircraft didn’t fit Canada’s soft power policies. But our government bought them for the hard power requirements of today’s world. Now we’re using them for relief work.
But fear not. No longer will we be wimps in the eyes of the world. Captain Everything is here to make sure of that.
"What is the moral of the story? To do soft power, you need hard power. You need a full range of capabilities."
I suspect, however, that Steve who has to be the centre of everything, all the time, is really trying to show Canadians, the world, the universe, and everything what a tough guy he is. What a man’s man.
And they're all gonna look at him.
***more (and better stuff) here. About Harper's lie in this matter, and an explanation of hard power and soft power.
Monday, February 15, 2010
I hope someone checks the full cost of this
And translates it into potential aid dollars.
Having a world leader go to areas needing help can draw attention to those needs and encourage further action.
However, when that self-centered leader has already made a name for himself as a self-promoting asshole who will use anything and anyone as a photo op, it does nothing more than spread cynicism and cost precious dollars.
There is no reason Harper has to go to Haiti himself to assess the situation.
Claiming Red Fridays for himself, and now this...
Excuse me. I have to go puke.
Having a world leader go to areas needing help can draw attention to those needs and encourage further action.
However, when that self-centered leader has already made a name for himself as a self-promoting asshole who will use anything and anyone as a photo op, it does nothing more than spread cynicism and cost precious dollars.
There is no reason Harper has to go to Haiti himself to assess the situation.
Claiming Red Fridays for himself, and now this...
Excuse me. I have to go puke.
Indoctrination - just another Stelmach service.
On the taxpayers’ dollar, of course.
T he Stelmach government plans on taking its energy and environment education blitz to the classroom to inform Alberta youths on the importance of the oilpatch and value of expensive carbon capture and storage technology.
Some people are saying, well fine, as long as the info is factual, and both sides are fairly presented.
Two problems with that: there aren’t two sides, only facts. Secondly, Stelmach has already shown he has no intention of striving even for the semblance of balance:
The initiatives were identified in last week's provincial budget documents that also revealed a 12 per cent boost to Energy Department spending and a five per cent cut to Alberta Environment, sparking questions about the government's priorities.
Those damn environmentalist making it harder and harder to sell oil! That damn environment should have the good grace to just roll over and die - quickly - so we can get on with making more money.
While the government looks to ratchet up its efforts (on behalf of the oil industry) in schools, it intends to cut back on some of its environmental monitoring in the energy sector as a result of budget cuts.
Specifically, it will reduce the frequency of air and water monitoring in areas that have, over recent years, shown positive results and are not near population centres, according to Alberta Environment.
So air and water quality (already showing red flags) affecting school children will not be monitored as well, but those little ones will be told more about the value of selling oil.
Good priorities, there. Maybe Stelmach can hire a bunch of those defenders of cigarette smoking to eventually inform the kiddies that no, the increase in asthma, cancer, and other deadly diseases has nothing at all to do with the development of those lovely oilsands.
T he Stelmach government plans on taking its energy and environment education blitz to the classroom to inform Alberta youths on the importance of the oilpatch and value of expensive carbon capture and storage technology.
Some people are saying, well fine, as long as the info is factual, and both sides are fairly presented.
Two problems with that: there aren’t two sides, only facts. Secondly, Stelmach has already shown he has no intention of striving even for the semblance of balance:
The initiatives were identified in last week's provincial budget documents that also revealed a 12 per cent boost to Energy Department spending and a five per cent cut to Alberta Environment, sparking questions about the government's priorities.
Those damn environmentalist making it harder and harder to sell oil! That damn environment should have the good grace to just roll over and die - quickly - so we can get on with making more money.
While the government looks to ratchet up its efforts (on behalf of the oil industry) in schools, it intends to cut back on some of its environmental monitoring in the energy sector as a result of budget cuts.
Specifically, it will reduce the frequency of air and water monitoring in areas that have, over recent years, shown positive results and are not near population centres, according to Alberta Environment.
So air and water quality (already showing red flags) affecting school children will not be monitored as well, but those little ones will be told more about the value of selling oil.
Good priorities, there. Maybe Stelmach can hire a bunch of those defenders of cigarette smoking to eventually inform the kiddies that no, the increase in asthma, cancer, and other deadly diseases has nothing at all to do with the development of those lovely oilsands.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
A Harper decision, impetuous?
Hill Times, February 8, 2010 - Angelo Persichilli
Despite that the decision to prorogue Parliament was initially welcomed by most of the Conservative caucus members, there is now a lingering disappointment with the decision. Some are trying to blame the Prime Minister and the PMO. These feelings, gently, but openly emerged during the GTA and Quebec Conservatives' caucus meetings held in the last few weeks.
Some Conservative MPs, even if not against the decision to prorogue Parliament, were not happy with the PMO's communications plan, or lack of one, to explain to Canadians the reasons for the prorogation. I'm sure that, by now, they have realized that the decision was not in the best interests of the government, and/or its execution was faulty.
Stop trying to cause a reversal of a Harper decision!
Still, they believe that it's too late to go back for two reasons. They don't want Canadians to think the Prime Minister is a weak leader who changes his views with the polls and the Throne Speech is not ready.
So instead Steve does something even dumber. The master strategist sets a fiendishly clever and subtle trap that Professor Moriarty would surely envy: the clever part - he announces that he will cancel two weeks of parliamentary breaks this spring to try to make up for the six weeks of work he personally cost Parliament when he decided to prorogue it and hopes no one will ask him why the hell he doesn't just go back to work now?
And the brilliantly fiendish part, as delivered by the slavish Gordon O'Connor: "Quite frankly, we would be surprised if the opposition disagreed."
riiiiight....
In which abdominous Steve out-manoeuvres himself.
Still trying to outsmart me, aren't you, mule-skinner. You want me to think that you don't want me to go down there but the subtle truth is you really don't want me to go down there.
Not only did the opposition agree to cancel the breaks, they took the opportunity to say how they have been working even during prorogation, and to shake their heads and ask why the government didn't just go back to work now, if there is so much work to do.
But they don't know that I intend to attack them without mercy!
And it's back to the pathetic, unimaginative, vulgar, dishonest ten percenters misused as attack ads. (h/t Impolitical)
Sure, Steve, you just keep heading down into that coulee. Don't let anyone ever, ever cause a reversal of a Harper decision.
Monday, February 8, 2010
About that whole Canada is better now than four years ago thing, Harper...
You have no weight pressuring other governments on respecting democracy when you fail to do it yourself.
The government of Hugo Chavez has responded to Canadian criticism it was "shrinking democratic space" in Venezuela by saying it will take no lessons from an "ultraright" government that "closed" Parliament to avoid an investigation into the handling of Afghan detainees.
Chavez’s government didn’t stop there, either. It went on to accuse the Harper government of seeking to damage Venezuela itself.
"I am talking of a Canada governed by an ultraright that closed its Parliament for various months to (evade) an investigation over the violation of human rights -- I am talking about torture and assassinations -- by its soldiers in Afghanistan," said Chaderton.
No Canadian has accused our soldiers of torture and assassination. Accusations from Canadians have been that the elected government knew about, and enabled torture, and that the fault rests with that government’s deliberate cover-up of how they failed to halt the transfer of detainees when they knew they were being handed over to a group that would most likely torture them.
But by riding endlessly on the theme that anyone who seeks an investigation into the transfers is attacking the soldiers, Harper assured the troops would become a target of such attacks.
After a trip to Venezuela, Peter Kent, minister of state for the Americas said Canada was concerned over the Chavez regime's decision to suspend the licences of several cable television stations and over the deaths of two students during protests.
"These events are further evidence of a shrinking democratic space in Venezuela," Kent said in the release. "During my recent visit to Venezuela, I heard many individuals and organizations express concerns related to violations of the right to freedom of expression and other basic liberties."
Uh-huh.
Sort of like this?
By proroguing Parliament to avoid investigations into his own complicity in the Afghan detainee issue, Harper has cost Canada a great deal of credibility and weight in its international efforts toward democratic rights and freedoms.
Bastard.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Best wishes, Jack
I'm sorry, I have no words. Just wishing you the absolute best.
I'm sure he'd appreciate knowing we care.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Beowulf Award
The Beowulf Award goes to: Marie-France Cloutier, Razmik Panossian and Charles Vallerand
H/t to Dr. Dawg
Three senior managers at a government-funded rights agency rocked by allegations of Conservative meddling have been suspended, including one of its longest-serving employees.
The three were among the staff that had earlier declared non-confidence in the Conservative-appointed chairman and two other appointees on the board.
We need to support these three, and any others who stand up to the politicization of agencies that are supposed to be non-partisan. They risk a great deal in defending the principles they were hired to promote and protect. Every time someone like them speaks out, they are fighting for everyone's right to do so. We have a responsibility to guard their backs in any way we can.
Stocky Doris Day should be a kindergarten teacher
In a fundamentalist christian school, of course.
His intro memo to the staff at Treasury Board is unprofessional, insincere, childish in the extreme, and insulting to those he addresses.
Day may not realize all of that. He doesn’t appear to be extremely bright, and he certainly isn’t worldly.
Here are a few excerpts from his memo:
Hello out there in Treasury Board land! As your newly appointed President (I'm still trying to get used to that title), I don't mind telling you I'm feeling a little bit overwhelmed.
A few minutes ago, I was looking out of my office window beside the Peace Tower in the direction of the Treasury Board building. I was wondering if I could see any of you from here.
The newly prepared briefing books (they look huge) are sitting on the desk in front of me. My briefing sessions are just beginning and I can see that I have a lot to learn.
By trying to sound folksy, chatty, and down-to-earth, he comes across as a fumbling, uneducated guy with no clue as to the nature of his audience.
Did you ever read any of those books written by Richard Scarry? Our kids used to enjoy when we would read one called What Do People Do All Day.
...Now my grandkids will be asking me "What do Treasury Board people do all day, do they take care of Treasures?" I'll say, "Well kind of ..."
I'll explain to them that I'll be working with people who work hard every day taking care of the money that the Government gets from all the workers in Canada who pay what's called "taxes," which is the money it takes to run the Government.
Now if Stock were really writing this for his grandkids, this would be fine, but his audience is the staff at Treasury Board. In addition to making one feel like gagging, this is an extremely patronizing way of addressing adults who have been working at TB for years, some for decades. They hardly need to hear a dumbed-down version of what they do.
I'm also looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible. The Secretary tells me there are over two thousand of you out there, in Ottawa and from coast to coast. I'm not sure I'll have each of your names memorized by the weekend, but I will get a better idea of "what you do all day" as I get the chance to meet you or at least to hear from you through the magic of email and other sources.
Again, while day is probably trying to sound humourous, his level of address is simply insulting to adults. If he cannot come up with a genial, but serious intro, he should not have bothered.
So let me say "Thank You" again for "what you do all day". Each of you in your own way is making a difference. I'd like to be a part of that with you. So for now, it's back to the briefing books. We'll talk again soon. And I'll be telling my grandkids about you.
“Stockwell” “Doris” “Day” should listen to communication advisors who would tell him that “quotation marks” are a “sign” of someone who needs “training” in writing to an “adult” audience.
We’ll talk again soon - patronizing, insincere, just plain stupid and inaccurate.
I find it somewhat frightening that this bumpkin will be running Treasury Board - sort of. We all know the real captain will be Stay-the-course, steady-hand-at-the-helm, the Big Guy, Himself.
Bunker mentality on display: these guys listen to their own rhetoric so much they have no clue what Canadians are all about.
His intro memo to the staff at Treasury Board is unprofessional, insincere, childish in the extreme, and insulting to those he addresses.
Day may not realize all of that. He doesn’t appear to be extremely bright, and he certainly isn’t worldly.
Here are a few excerpts from his memo:
Hello out there in Treasury Board land! As your newly appointed President (I'm still trying to get used to that title), I don't mind telling you I'm feeling a little bit overwhelmed.
A few minutes ago, I was looking out of my office window beside the Peace Tower in the direction of the Treasury Board building. I was wondering if I could see any of you from here.
The newly prepared briefing books (they look huge) are sitting on the desk in front of me. My briefing sessions are just beginning and I can see that I have a lot to learn.
By trying to sound folksy, chatty, and down-to-earth, he comes across as a fumbling, uneducated guy with no clue as to the nature of his audience.
Did you ever read any of those books written by Richard Scarry? Our kids used to enjoy when we would read one called What Do People Do All Day.
...Now my grandkids will be asking me "What do Treasury Board people do all day, do they take care of Treasures?" I'll say, "Well kind of ..."
I'll explain to them that I'll be working with people who work hard every day taking care of the money that the Government gets from all the workers in Canada who pay what's called "taxes," which is the money it takes to run the Government.
Now if Stock were really writing this for his grandkids, this would be fine, but his audience is the staff at Treasury Board. In addition to making one feel like gagging, this is an extremely patronizing way of addressing adults who have been working at TB for years, some for decades. They hardly need to hear a dumbed-down version of what they do.
I'm also looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible. The Secretary tells me there are over two thousand of you out there, in Ottawa and from coast to coast. I'm not sure I'll have each of your names memorized by the weekend, but I will get a better idea of "what you do all day" as I get the chance to meet you or at least to hear from you through the magic of email and other sources.
Again, while day is probably trying to sound humourous, his level of address is simply insulting to adults. If he cannot come up with a genial, but serious intro, he should not have bothered.
So let me say "Thank You" again for "what you do all day". Each of you in your own way is making a difference. I'd like to be a part of that with you. So for now, it's back to the briefing books. We'll talk again soon. And I'll be telling my grandkids about you.
“Stockwell” “Doris” “Day” should listen to communication advisors who would tell him that “quotation marks” are a “sign” of someone who needs “training” in writing to an “adult” audience.
We’ll talk again soon - patronizing, insincere, just plain stupid and inaccurate.
I find it somewhat frightening that this bumpkin will be running Treasury Board - sort of. We all know the real captain will be Stay-the-course, steady-hand-at-the-helm, the Big Guy, Himself.
Bunker mentality on display: these guys listen to their own rhetoric so much they have no clue what Canadians are all about.
The Senate as a soapbox.
Paid for by us.
Meet one of Canada’s newest senators — Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu.
The Sherbrooke, Que., native who went on from the tragic murder of his daughter to become one of Canada’s best known advocates for the rights of victims and their families says he plans to use his new job to fight for victims rights and to crack down on the criminals who prey on them.
Boisvenu said he has specific things he wants to achieve in terms of justice and victims rights. At the end of four years he plans to assess his progress and if he has achieved what he came to Ottawa to do, he’ll quit.
Many Senators have their area of interest, an issue they push for relentlessly. Dallaire fights for human rights, especially the rights of people affected by war; Oliver fights for visible minorities (although I’ve noticed he can be quite silent when his views are not in agreement with those of the conservative government); Ringuette fights for the right of all Canadians to apply for government jobs regardless of where they live in Canada...
But those Senators never claim to be there solely for those issues.
Any Senator will likely bring certain goals to the Senate and will have a point of view already in place. But by saying he’ll quit once he achieves his preconceived goals on crime and justice, Boisvenu is saying two things - even without debate in the Senate, he has made up his mind what he wants to push for, and that is his sole purpose for serving as a Senator.
The Senate should not be anyone’s personal soapbox, paid for by taxpayers. Senators must address each issue with a willingness to debate and consider other information and arguments, and they must be as committed to all issues presented for debate and vote.
Meet one of Canada’s newest senators — Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu.
The Sherbrooke, Que., native who went on from the tragic murder of his daughter to become one of Canada’s best known advocates for the rights of victims and their families says he plans to use his new job to fight for victims rights and to crack down on the criminals who prey on them.
Boisvenu said he has specific things he wants to achieve in terms of justice and victims rights. At the end of four years he plans to assess his progress and if he has achieved what he came to Ottawa to do, he’ll quit.
Many Senators have their area of interest, an issue they push for relentlessly. Dallaire fights for human rights, especially the rights of people affected by war; Oliver fights for visible minorities (although I’ve noticed he can be quite silent when his views are not in agreement with those of the conservative government); Ringuette fights for the right of all Canadians to apply for government jobs regardless of where they live in Canada...
But those Senators never claim to be there solely for those issues.
Any Senator will likely bring certain goals to the Senate and will have a point of view already in place. But by saying he’ll quit once he achieves his preconceived goals on crime and justice, Boisvenu is saying two things - even without debate in the Senate, he has made up his mind what he wants to push for, and that is his sole purpose for serving as a Senator.
The Senate should not be anyone’s personal soapbox, paid for by taxpayers. Senators must address each issue with a willingness to debate and consider other information and arguments, and they must be as committed to all issues presented for debate and vote.
Maybe a public servant living in that other Canada wrote this.
You know, the Canada Harper says is better now than four years ago?
“The Prime Minister’s action has not only brought additional talent and expertise to the Senate; it has greatly strengthened our efforts to move forward on our tackling-crime agenda.”
“The opposition has obstructed that agenda in the Senate, most notably by gutting Bill C-15 – a bill proposing mandatory jail time for serious drug offences, and a key part of the government’s efforts to fight organized crime.”
“These five new Senators support all our measures,” said Minister Paradis. “And today, we ask the opposition parties to listen to the victims of crime and to support our measures, too.”
That is part of what appears on Justice Canada’s site.
Like all federal departments and agencies staffed by public servants, the website is supposed to be non-partisan. At all times.
This is important, because if an elected government is allowed to use it to push its ideology, promote its agenda, or attack the opposition, there is a clear conflict of interest and the very real possibility of presenting biassed information.
Nor should tax payer funded sites such as these be used to promote the interests or attack ads of any one party.
This time, all of us tax payers have paid for this partisan attack ad posted by the Conservatives. Tolerate this, and next year, we could all be paying for similar ads for the Liberal party. No elected government can be allowed to manipulate public service websites, or those sites become nothing more than political propaganda. Useless as a source of information to the public.
Public servants, especially those working in communications, understand this. That is why it is near to impossible that a public servant wrote that conservative message with the intentions of posting it on Justice Canada’s site.
Furthermore, since the statement made on that site is not accurate considering the Conservatives themselves have delayed and even killed their own crime bills, it is even less believable that a public servant wrote it. That communications person would have done their research, aimed for accuracy, knowing full well that their words will be closely reviewed and edited by several managers.
With several levels of public service managers reviewing the message, errors would have been caught and it is impossible that the partisan nature of the message would not have been caught and addressed. Unless the message came from the top. The political top.
"This is a concerted effort on the part of this government to politicize the public service," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. "This is not the first time, it is reprehensible and it has to stop." Jennings lodged her complaint with Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters over a press release posted on the Justice Department's website
...She wants it removed and Wouters to investigate whether public servants wrote, approved and posted it, or if it was prepared by political staff and posted under their orders. She also wants to know if any bureaucrats objected.
An investigation sounds appropriate. But with attack after attack on public servants who have been brutalized for trying to do their jobs, will any come forth? I hope so, but then it’s easy for me to say since I’m not the one risking my job.
More public servants are coming forth, but with the threat of cutbacks in the public service, and a scarcety of jobs in the private sector, they take a great risk in offending their political Minister.
This is why I keep saying we need to support our public servants when they stand up against those who would rather they remain silent.
They work for us. We should help them do so without threats or harassment.
“The Prime Minister’s action has not only brought additional talent and expertise to the Senate; it has greatly strengthened our efforts to move forward on our tackling-crime agenda.”
“The opposition has obstructed that agenda in the Senate, most notably by gutting Bill C-15 – a bill proposing mandatory jail time for serious drug offences, and a key part of the government’s efforts to fight organized crime.”
“These five new Senators support all our measures,” said Minister Paradis. “And today, we ask the opposition parties to listen to the victims of crime and to support our measures, too.”
That is part of what appears on Justice Canada’s site.
Like all federal departments and agencies staffed by public servants, the website is supposed to be non-partisan. At all times.
This is important, because if an elected government is allowed to use it to push its ideology, promote its agenda, or attack the opposition, there is a clear conflict of interest and the very real possibility of presenting biassed information.
Nor should tax payer funded sites such as these be used to promote the interests or attack ads of any one party.
This time, all of us tax payers have paid for this partisan attack ad posted by the Conservatives. Tolerate this, and next year, we could all be paying for similar ads for the Liberal party. No elected government can be allowed to manipulate public service websites, or those sites become nothing more than political propaganda. Useless as a source of information to the public.
Public servants, especially those working in communications, understand this. That is why it is near to impossible that a public servant wrote that conservative message with the intentions of posting it on Justice Canada’s site.
Furthermore, since the statement made on that site is not accurate considering the Conservatives themselves have delayed and even killed their own crime bills, it is even less believable that a public servant wrote it. That communications person would have done their research, aimed for accuracy, knowing full well that their words will be closely reviewed and edited by several managers.
With several levels of public service managers reviewing the message, errors would have been caught and it is impossible that the partisan nature of the message would not have been caught and addressed. Unless the message came from the top. The political top.
"This is a concerted effort on the part of this government to politicize the public service," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. "This is not the first time, it is reprehensible and it has to stop." Jennings lodged her complaint with Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters over a press release posted on the Justice Department's website
...She wants it removed and Wouters to investigate whether public servants wrote, approved and posted it, or if it was prepared by political staff and posted under their orders. She also wants to know if any bureaucrats objected.
An investigation sounds appropriate. But with attack after attack on public servants who have been brutalized for trying to do their jobs, will any come forth? I hope so, but then it’s easy for me to say since I’m not the one risking my job.
More public servants are coming forth, but with the threat of cutbacks in the public service, and a scarcety of jobs in the private sector, they take a great risk in offending their political Minister.
This is why I keep saying we need to support our public servants when they stand up against those who would rather they remain silent.
They work for us. We should help them do so without threats or harassment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)