Who will do the right thing?

Tony Clement is reported to have said in one interview this week that "There’s not a micron of difference of opinion between myself and the prime minister on this."

Now it appears from some reports that Clement actually argued, in Cabinet, against the change but was overruled by His Harpiness. After tugging at his forelock he then went out into the wider, more intelligent, real world and tried to sell what was essentially unsellable, using all the tools so readily at hand for the Reform-a-Tories – lies, obfuscation, denial, blame, misdirection, fear.

By all accounts Tony Clement is not a stupid man, and one whom I assume went into politics with honourable intent. But where is the honour when he so clearly checks his integrity at the Cabinet doors?  (And that’s not to pick on Clement. Think Poilievre, Baird, LeBreton, Day, and on, and on, and on – well some of them really are stupid, but you get the point.)

I’ve blogged on this before (http://viewsfromthelake-eh.blogspot.com/2007/11/if-we-both-think-alike-one-of-us-is.html), and like I said then, I just don’t understand how smart people can let themselves be manipulated and abused by a tin-pot dictator day in and day out without screaming “enough” and trying to salvage at least a small amount of their pride. I know many others who have quit more lucrative jobs (myself included) for far less reason, so what is their excuse?

I know some would say it’s easier to effect change from within, and that’s true to a point, but I would also suggest that when your boss tells you to lie in public it’s time to take a stand, and I for one, would hope that at least one or two of the principled people in whom we entrust the management of our country would stand up and be counted.

But sadly, in Canadian politics today, I can’t think of a single Member of Parliament that I would trust to do the right thing.

Tony Clement – hoisted on his own petard

The news yesterday that the head of Statistics Canada has resigned over the long-form census debacle brought this bit of Tony Clement disingenuity into focus.

Speaking to Susan Lunn on CBC’s The House Saturday, Clement offered this gem:

... if you’re critics of the government you're not going to necessarily trust a member of the government and his point of view on this, but if you don't trust Tony Clement you can certainly trust Stats Can.

Now would he be possibly be referring to Mr. Munir Sheikh, the Chief Statistician, who resigned over Clement’s incompetent handling of this file?

As also quoted in the same Globe and Mail news item:

“With Dr. Sheikh’s resignation, Statistics Canada, and indeed the nation’s statistical system, has lost the committed services of a man of integrity and honour,” Mr. McKinnon said.

Of course Messrs. Clement, Harper, et al wouldn’t know “integrity and honour” if it hit them in the face, and in fact appear to have now mounted an attack campaign criticizing Dr. Sheikh.

This one’s a long way from over folks.

So explain to me again who’s winning the war on terror.

One doesn’t have to look too far these days to see that while the “terrorists” may not be winning militarily, they have still managed to inflict a flurry of body blows on the west. Whether it’s the economic impact on business caused by enhanced border security and air travel restrictions, the increased financial burdens for security (the billion dollar boondoggle in Toronto being just the most recent egregious example), or the curtailment of the most basic of human rights (ditto billion dollar boondoggle), western governments are now dancing to their tune.

And here is the latest example of stupidity on this file.

The federal agency in charge of airline security admits its staff were wrong to force the head of a non-profit agency off a plane at a B.C. airport and then detain her because they believed she was carrying too much money.

Wendy Toyer of the ALS Society of B.C. was carrying cash and cheques donated at the ALS Walk in Kamloops as she boarded a plane at the city’s airport last Saturday.

So here’s a woman who hardly matches the profile of a terrorist, yet she was forced off a plane and detained because someone “believed she was carrying too much money.”

CATSA of course is all apologetic, as they should be, but only for forcing her off the plane in Kamloops. Instead they should be apologizing to her for breaching her privacy by reporting her to the RCMP in the first place. But here again individual rights are being tossed out the window under the guise of fighting terrorism and it’s poorer cousin, crime. 

Kamloops RCMP Staff Sgt. Quentin Smith said CATSA shares information with the police under the Privacy Act where proceeds of crime and terrorism are concerned.

CATSA staff are asked to contact RCMP if someone is travelling with a large amount of cash although there is no law against doing so. (emphasis mine)

Read the full story here: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1190381.html

The “Liberalisation” of the Reforma-Tories

The Harpercons won’t admit it, but they have always had a great admiration for Jean Chretien and are trying, not so secretly, to emulate the the previous Prime Minister in the hopes that by doing so they will be able to achieve that elusive (thank God for that) majority.

The latest evidence comes in this quote from Tony “Pork barrel” Clement. As reported in the Ottawa Sun, Clement explained the building of the University of Waterloo’s new environmental research facility in Huntsville with money from the summit budget as follows:

“The building of this building is made possible because we are taking $9 million from our G8 infrastructure fund and using it as a way to build the building, and so this fits into our organizing for the summit.”

Don’t believe me? Well Jean Chretien said it best himself.

“It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.”

Q.E.D.

The bizarre world of road race timing

Having a marathoner in the family one is exposed to the various rules and regulations associated with competitive running. Most make some degree of sense, but one particular rule is so patently stupid as to beggar the imagination.

According to the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations) Road Race Handbook, “The official time shall be the time elapsed between the firing of the starting gun and the athlete reaching the finish line. However, the time elapsed between an athlete crossing the start line and the finish line can be made known to him, but will not be considered an official time.”

So what this means is that race results are not actually based on the time a runner takes to go from the start to the finish line over a measured distance.

In a 100-yard dash, the runners all line up right on the start line, so it matters not, but in a large race, it’s not uncommon for competitors to be lined up 200 or 300 yards behind the start line. Once the gun fires, it can take those runners a couple of minutes to get to the start line therefore doubly penalizing them, first for having to “run” a longer distance, but also having to do that extra distance at a much slower pace as the runners in front get under way.

This can result in a situation where a runner who was actually faster over the measured distance places lower in the standings than a runner who was slower over the measured distance but was closer to the start line when the gun sounded. And that’s not fair, or accurate.

Runners today are all equipped with transponder chips to precisely determine when they cross the start and finish lines, thus giving a very precise elapsed time required to cover the measured distance. That should be the only “official time” as it’s the only accurate measurement of how fast the runner covered the actual distance.

It’s time for the various organizing bodies to move out of the 19th century and change this rule.

Ontario knows what’s best for you (or not!)

According to this story in the National Post:

Ontario's alcohol regulator has moved to ban an Austrian beer favoured by connoisseurs because its name, Samichlaus, means St. Nicholas in Swiss-German.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has decided the beer's label contravenes rules against advertising to children. It features the name of the beer, Samichlaus, a Swiss-German nickname for the saint behind the Santa Claus legend, and a small black-and-white bearded figure.

Now while that’s stupid enough, here’s the kicker:

A spokeswoman for the commission said the ruling dates from 2001, had lain dormant for years after the commission moved to complaints-based enforcement, and was only "reactivated" recently after a "single complaint from a private person."

A “single complaint from a private person.”

First of all I’d like to know who the idiot is that finds this product unacceptable. (In my opinion, all such complaints should be public and open up the complainer to the appropriate level of ridicule.)

But second, if the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario takes this sort of action based on a single complaint, I think I’ll go to the LCBO today and file complaints about every wine with ducks or kangaroos or little penguins on the label. Or how about wines with names like “Fat Bastard”. That offends me, even though I’m neither. And those British strong ales like Hobgoblin. Why they surely represent Halloween, and are obviously targeting children. The list is nearly endless for anyone with a common sense deficiency and an axe to grind.

What do we need to  do to get the adults back in charge?

Personal responsibility

Although I’m no fan of Rogers, I have to admit I’m on their side (mostly) on this one.

A Toronto woman says the billing practices of Rogers Wireless Inc. led to her husband discovering her extramarital affair.

Now the woman, whose husband walked out, is suing the communications giant for $600,000 for alleged invasion of privacy and breach of contract, the results of which she says have ruined her life.

Supposedly this woman’s extramarital affair was exposed when her husband saw some suspicious calls from her cell phone statement which Rogers had bundled in with the regular family bill. The husband then phoned the number and spoke with the person there who confirmed the affair.

I may be a minority of one, but I don’t make it a habit of calling the numbers on my wife’s cell phone records to see who she's been talking with, and why. So I imagine there was already cause for suspicion and this was but one more indicator. That still doesn’t excuse his behaviour, but it does suggest the marriage was already in trouble and a divorce was inevitable.

But more importantly, she was cheating and got caught. I make no moral judgement on her behaviour, but it does seem typical that these days, when one is caught with one’s hand in the proverbial cookie jar the first response is to blame the manufacturer for making the lid too easy to remove. That decision was hers and hers alone, and to try to lay the blame elsewhere just doesn’t fly.

As for Rogers’ behaviour, if the report is correct in that they “unilaterally terminated its cellular contract with the plaintiff that had been in her maiden name and included it in the husband’s account that was under his surname.” then they are, at the very least, in breach of any number of privacy rules and regulations. Other aspects of the claim against Rogers raise even more troubling concerns about their privacy processes which must be corrected if true, and so they have work to do.

But the bottom line, Gabriella Nagy, is that you made a decision that had unexpected consequences. It sucks, but that’s what accepting personal responsibility is all about. And laying a $600,000 lawsuit on Rogers just means you’re trying to make someone else pay for your own errors in judgement. I hope the courts see it the same way.