Hickstead is dead?

Damn!  That horse could nearly fly.

His great heart gave out after completing a round at an international championship on Novemeber 6, 2011.  He was 15.

He seemed to be the horse that no one wanted. Undersized, overexcited, too small to excel and too wild to win.

He was an Olympic gold medalist for Canada, a peerless athlete, and at his time of death, the greatest jumper in the world.
And a beauty.

Maybe harper can bring in the troops

Get a few good photo ops of him in military gear with a cool chopper behind him, trying to look human as he shoves toothpicks in his cheeks to shape a smile at a little Native kid.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan, who announced the measures in question period Wednesday, told the House of Commons that "urgent health and safety issues" in the northern Ontario community needed immediate action.  "The Government of Canada has informed the chief that we are placing the community in third-party management to ensure community needs are addressed," Duncan said.  "Part of the manager's role will be to administer my department's funding which is normally managed by the First Nation directly."

Harper doesn’t bother to wait for the report he said he’s having done on how money has been spent.  Hell no.  These are natives.  It’s pretty obvious to him they can’t manage their own affairs and the problems with underfunding spending must be due to their mismanagement.  That’s why we needed those residential schools he was forced to inspired to apologize for.

And now he’s supposed to build them new schools?  Look what happened last time.  Ingrates!

Third party management.  Guilty without an investigation.  Must be their faullt ‘cause it sure as hell can’t be his, right?  Forget that the AG said the quality of life on reservations is appalling and care is poorly managed by INAC.

Bad premise on which to begin rectifying the situation at Attawapiskat and other locations.  This  has simply become another excuse harper will use to cut funding (!!!) And take away what little autonomy First Nations still have.

Duncan and harper’s response to this crisis has been unconscionable.  It will not change.  It is how the CONs perceive anyone who isn’t them, and First Nations are below the bottom of his scale of who matters, who deserves basic human rights.

They eat their own

Yesterday, during Oral Questions, a backbencher so inexperienced and pleased at having even a softball question to ask - which he had to read word by stammering word from notes - could not hold back his school yard taunting smile of "look how clever I am" -

(Hansard, November 29, 2011, emphasis mine)

Mr. John Williamson:  Mr. Speaker, Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all. That is exactly what we are going to do. However, today the members from Western Arctic and Skeena—Bulkley Valley caved to pressure from their big city elite union bosses and showed up at the public safety committee to attempt to gut our legislation.  Could the Minister of Public Safety please comment on the action of these two members of Parliament?
The Speaker (Andrew Scheer) :    I am afraid that question has nothing to do with the administration of government. We will go on to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

Big city elite union bosses??!!??  Pressuring the NDP on the long gun registry?   OKaaayyyy....

Scheer made the right call, and predictably, many members on the opposition side of the room clapped and cheered his decision.

His own party?  It doesn't appear in Hansard, but if you watch the video (at around 14:55) you see no one on the CON side is very happy, and you clearly hear: "What happened to you?  You used to be one of the good guys!"  And seconds later: "Sell-out!" again from the CONs.  Harper did no more than look around.

After Scheer smiling through the jeering and cheering on the vote the previous day, and after watching him let "treacherous" slide when applied to NDP MPs, I was surprised he blocked the question.  I really hope the our way or the high way attitude of his party's members doesn't guide him on future calls.

He could become a speaker of note if he brings some decorum back to the House and clearly shows impartiality as Speaker, but that's asking a lot from someone who faces cannibals in his own party.

How about we just call it the harper Service of Canada™?

Why not since: well researched advice by public servants who make recommendations on what’s best for the public are constantly overridden by harper’s political bag boys; public service resources are used forpolitical partisan endeavours; communications to the public are controlledby harper; communications to the public are not intended to inform the public of reality but rather are micro-managed by harper to avoid embarrassing him  and his own; non-partisan appointments are becoming obsolete;  and, public servants are forced to attend partisan functions for harper’s drones who are friendless...

The master strategist isn’t just redefining Canadian identity, he’s redefining our rights and the accountability of our public service – something created as a non-partisan body to serve us without political interference.

But we’ll leave the word “Canada” in there since Canadians are the ones footing the bill for the harper Service.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say public servants are harper servants...yet.  It’ll take a little while – but no as long as one might expect – for the pressure from the harper appointees and those they squeeze near the top to filter down to the bulk of public servants who still believe in their mandates of serving the public honestly and in a non-partisan fashion.

But as harper takes over more control through bullying and ignoring legislation of what is supposed to be an independent body as our service, the very concept of independence will disappear from documents, speeches, communications, internal meetings until public servants forget they were once public servants and go about their jobs believing and never questioning that they are political servants.

And the public?  Who will be looking out for us?

No one.

Last week, the Citizen reported DND will spend more than $600 million on preparing the Nortel site to be its main location in Ottawa...on top of the $208 million the government spent to purchase the Carling Avenue campus... the documents show DND officials were worried last year about how the renovation costs would be perceived. “Media, parliamentarians and Canadians will be focused on the cost to taxpayers for the acquisition of the Campus and the subsequent retro-fit costs,” noted a DND strategy document.

Such concerns were solved when Deputy Minister Robert Fonberg stepped in. Fonberg’s assistant wrote that the deputy minister was concerned about telling the public about the cost. According to an email, Fonberg asked, “Why are we using the $623m(illion) fit up cost? It is without context and will be a lightning rod!”  The cost was removed from public documents about the Nortel purchase.

Minimizing risk to the Conservative government about issues that might raise questions has become a hallmark of federal communications strategies, say critics.

Fiscally responsible conservatives

Can someone finally declare that beast mythical? (emphasis mine) 

In its first year of power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) government increased spending by 6.3 per cent and continued increasing until 2010, when it went down by 1.36 per cent. Between 2006 and 2010, government spending increased by $48-billion, according to the Public Accounts of Canada. In its first year the Conservative government had a $13.8-billion surplus, and in 2010 posted a $33.37-billion deficit. In total, revenues during the same period grew only 0.46 per cent.

In comparison, former prime minister Jean Chrétien’s government from 1994 to 2003 increased spending by 9.8 per cent while revenues grew 46.96 per cent. Mr. Chrétien inherited a $37.47-billion deficit when he took power. In 2003, the government posted a $9-billion surplus.

Under Paul Martin, the government increased spending 10.85 per cent in 2004, but decreased it by 0.49 per cent in 2005 while revenues continued to grow.

Folks – the harperites talk fiscal responsibility.  They talk jobs.  They talk getting rid of waste and large government.  But look at the reality:

  Conservative governments have a worse fical record than Liberal governments: they’ve been in deficit 11 out of the 14 years (or 79%) they’ve run the federal government and run deficits averaging 3.3% of the economy, compared to an average of 2.3% for the Liberals, with 8 out of 17 years running balanced budgets. 

If you think Occupy folks should be beaten and locked up...

You have a model.  It’s been done before.

By this sandal-wearing hippie, according to what a lot of anti-occupiers believe -

He said such radical, anti-government things like:

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." - Timothy 6:17-19

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.  -Matthew 25:41-45

Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” -Matthew 19:21

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." -Matthew 7:12

Imagine that.  Advocating redistribution of wealth and equal treatment.  Good thing they killed that radical, eh?

Maybe we can bring in the death penalty for rabble rousers.  If it was good enough for Jesus...

The environment isn't a special interest

Although some people seem to think it is.  It's not like hockey, or hunting, or the opera where you can choose whether or not you want it to be part of your life.  Unlike skiing, or golf, or the art of origami, you can't just ignore it if you aren't interested and unlike those things, it will have a major impact on your life whether you believe it is worth taking into account or not.

Care of the environment isn't something that can be put on hold like renovating the Parliament buildings or building a hockey rink.  We can't keep saying there's no money in our budget to meet the challenges of climate change or protect the ozone layer. 

Because it isn't a special interest and because it affects everyone right at the survival level, we can't treat it like a marketable product that needs to compete with other products or interests.  It can't be forced to compete with oil profits or political ideologies, but largely, that's what's being done.

This week, knowledge-challenged Kent will be going to Durban to discuss climate change.  His plan?  Defend Alberta’s oilsands.  Not discuss ways we can deal with climate change, but defend one of the very things that aggravates the very serious problem.  Our Environment Minister's priority is how to stop environmental protection from interfering expanding oil production.  If anyone still has any doubts that the harper government™ is not at all concerned about climate change or any aspects of our environment, this insane plan for the Durban meetings should quell those permanently.

As harper tries to keep some distance from the crazy Levant, his party has picked up on the term "ethical oil" although Kent thinks we are all as stupid as him and says the term "came from somewhere in (his) unconsciousness" before he ever heard of it in connection to Ezra.  Right.  Sure. 

So Kent is going to use that dishonest argument at a climate change summit to attempt to convince countries that recognize the necessity of actually having an environment that can sustain us that increasing production of Canadian oil will somehow benefit burka shrouded women in the Middle East.

These aren't a bunch of distracted Canadian voters he'll be addressing.  He can't count on their ignorance of science, social issues, and the harsh realities of climate change lapping up at shores across the globe, causing droughts and famines, drying up rivers reliant on ice caps.

Besides embarrassing Canadians by his small town, small minded politics, he will not likely meet with much success -

(N)egotiating climate change agreements in South Africa by bringing up the ethics of Canada’s oil may not be the firmest ground for Canada’s government delegations...

“The ethical oil sort of messaging has certainly been popping up. It certainly wouldn’t have been around three or four years ago,” Matt Horne says. But in Europe, as focus turns to curbing the production of carbon-intensive fuels, “it doesn’t seem to be a dominant part in that debate. They’re much more focused on the environmental implications of different sources of oil.”

“The fact that we have a stable democratic system is good, that’s not an excuse not to move forward on environmental considerations as well, though. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me if it’s raised by some, but I don’t think that will satisfy the many people who are rightly looking at the environmental concerns as well.”

Like Baird before him, on harper's orders, Kent will do what he can to slow progress on climate talks.  I think that rather than gaining any points for Canada, he will return with our image even more tarnished and put us at a disadvantage when invitations are issued for tight groups intent on making real change happen.  We'll be the country listed on their agendas as problematic.  

More muzzling?

The harper government™ has released, through Treasury Board,  rules for public servants on use of social media. 

"We’re basically saying it’s ok to dialogue with the public, it’s ok to open up government information, it’s ok to be more productive by sharing information, but there is a framework you are going to have to develop." - clement

But open government advocate David Eaves said the rules don’t jibe with Clement’s message about improving the flow of information.  "This entire document is about improving the control of information," he said.

But while the rules may help persuade managers to let their employees go online, fear of running afoul of policy will make people’s lives more difficult, Eaves said.

Eaves says the new rules will slow communications to a crawl as departments struggle to make sure any messages distributed via the Net will be subject to far too much scrutiny.

Communications

1.      Verify that the planned Web 2.0 initiative is congruent with Government of Canada themes and messages, as well as departmental communications' and consultations' objectives and requirements. Privy Council Office should be engaged early in the process to ensure alignment of Web 2.0 activities with Government of Canada communication and consultation priorities;

As this applies, I believe, to all government departments and agencies, this gives harper that foot into controlling independent agencies’ communications products, something he has been trying to do for some time.  PCO takes an oversight position, here.

Another area of concern is how the new rules address public servants’ private use of social media.

For Professional Networking & Personal Use:

1. Your obligations as outlined in the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service apply at all times, particularly if your employer could be identified through your use of Web 2.0 tools and services.

Simply put, anytime public servants express themselves publicly, they must make it very clear they are speaking as a private citizen, and not on behalf of their department.  However, perception is recognized as playing a part, so even a disclaimer does not protect public servants from speaking if it comes out that they are public servants.  That’s problematic since it would only take exposing the person’s identity and job to give an abusive government an excuse to shut down public servants who are occasionally critical of the elected government.

2. By virtue of your employment, information shared through Web 2.0 tools and services may be perceived as an official Government of Canada position rather than your own opinion. You should therefore clearly state in your account profile that the views expressed are your own and not those of your employer. However, it is important to note that such a disclaimer does not absolve you of your obligations as a public servant, including your duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada… An employee's public commentary (including online activity on blogs and other social media platforms) about an organization, including its minister, is subject to scrutiny under the duty of loyalty requirement.

What are the boundaries of duty and loyalty?  Will public servants be willing to test these under a government that treats any kind of dissent as criminal?  Will they have to be concerned about being spied upon?  Are they now more apprehensive over the changes to online surveillance Toews wants to implement?   

Will public servants place their loyalty to serving the public before heavy-handed policies passed down by a secretive, repressive government?  Is not the first loyalty of public servants to the public?

Only publicly available information may be shared externally, unless you are specifically authorized otherwise. Always check permissions required to reproduce or distribute any information, including Government of Canada content such as illustrations, photographs, videos, audio, logos, trade-marks or wordmarks.

There’s a troubling contradiction there.  While publicly available info can be shared, that right can be over-run by…who?  A Minister?  A Deputy Head?  A manager?  On what basis?  Already, this latest set of rules contrains public servants from using the same resources as any other private citizen.

“Duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada” comes up several times in the rules and seems to override the public servants’ rights as private citizens to express opinions or criticize.

Fulfillment of these obligations is expected at all times as follows:

• Public servants owe a duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada;
• Do no harm to the reputation of your employer;

But what if your employer is acting inappropriately and this has become information available to anyone, such as the case of Clement and the G-20 funds, or political aides interfering with ATIP requests, or the AG reports that expose lack of transparency and waste of funds?  Would criticizing Clement’s actions and lack of accountability be considered a violation of the rules if the public servant posting as a private citizen works for TBS?

There is a single line that offers public servants some small protection against abuse of power by political bosses -

·         public servants shall loyally implement ministerial decisions, lawfully taken.

 

However, that statement is immediately followed by more reinforcement of “duty of loyalty.”

·       

  In  In Canada's system of parliamentary democracy, public servants owe a duty of loyalty to their employer, the Government of Canada. This includes refraining from any activity that could compromise the efforts of Government organizations to deliver on their mandate.

Eaves is right.  These new rules are more to control communications than encourage them, and this extends even to a public servant’s right to express themselves as private citizens.

Fox News: dumb and unbalanced

Fox News viewers in the U.S. are less informed than those who watch nothing at all, a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll says.

Too bad they'll never hear about it.

"...a very dangerous precedent"

Yes, making things disappear because we don't want people finding shit out is pretty dangerous.  We should know that.

 

Eventually, people make a party out of embracing ignorance and destroying information.  Children begin to view any kind of information - except that approved by The Party - as corrupting.  Damn academics, statisticians, scientists!  Pretentious types, elitists, the whole lot, bunch of latte drinking commies...

Ignorant people are easier to control.  Lack of resources to research policy lets The Party make up their own pseudo-facts and figures.

The federal bill introduced last month would halt registration of long guns and permanently delete more than seven million files on gun ownership. It would override provisions of the Library and Archives of Canada Act and the Privacy Act to allow for destruction of the records.

The Association of Canadian Archivists recently wrote to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, arguing that destroying records for "political expediency" and ignoring existing legislation "sets a very dangerous precedent for future legislation and record-keeping practices."

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." 
                                                                                                                                                - Orwell