How Elizabeth MAY feels that she deserves special attention is beyond me! That she didn't win a single seat should consign her back to the dust-heap - and join David SUZUKI Foundation - as far as I am concerned. However, perhaps more important is why the media keep her in the spot-light.
During this campaign I feel that partisan self-interest has become endemic in the media. The Leaders Debate was a perfect example - Steve PAIKIN seemed to forget that he was the Moderator and practically assisted holding back HARPER so the others could gang tackle. I don't recall him pointing out inconsistencies in Jack LAYTON's comments or taking DION to task on any issue. Such double-standard performances were most galling when given by the CBC - should not a public broadcaster show some balance rather than being the cheer-leaders for the left?
Despite my opposition to the Election Canada "gag laws" harming individuals and interest groups ability to engage in public debate and the exemption given the media should be undone. Similar to the financial commentators who are expected to disclose any financial conflicts of interests by disclosing their personal holdings, I propose all political media commentators disclose any political party affiliations, political contracts and how they voted on the last election in order that readers can gauge their political bias. This would provide a "quid pro quo" balance to the media's free ride.
Similarly, I was dismayed at Edmonton-Strathcona's M.P Elect Linda DUNCAN smug assurances that she had won over incumbent Rahim JAFFER . She had a fair lead but given the number of difficulties over Voter ID, some self-control is in order. Let's see how this "brou-ha-ha" ends.
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Election Over - No Change
More of the same.Unfortunately, the Conservatives could not mount an effective campaign against an ineffective opposition. It was a gift - and we blew it. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
While there is was a small advantage gained in Conservative seats (+16) 1 leading to a minor victory in the house, there was significant changes to the players. Many old hands were ejected and new - stronger - blood transfused across all party spectra. With the firing of Liberal Leader Stephane DION likely, there will be another hiatus until the Liberals regroup. This will make the dynamics of governing quite interesting over the next 1-2 years.
I contend that Leaders Debate was critical to Harper's failure to define what "Conservatives Stood For" - he was constantly on the defensive and let LAYTON, DUCEPPE (and even DION) brand him as un-NDP, un-Quebecois/BQ and un-Liberal. That he could not mount a spirited defense was costly. Furthermore until the BQ is broken no party can successfully govern.
Nonetheless, I do not see that a Minority Conservative Government will actually harm anyone. "Less is More" is possibility the best prescription right now. Apparently everyone is expected to report for work ASAP. Throne speech before Remembrance Day and Xmas Recess on Dec 12.
Here were the results of the UBC Election Market.
UBC has been running the Election Market for at least a decade now - and I think has done an excellent job.It is worth noting that Alberta voter turnout was the lowest ever at 52.9% (this is the percentage voted of Total Registered Voters - itself a fraction of total population.) Doubtless because of the large-scale Conservative landslide anticipated in the province, other party supporters (Liberals, NDP) did not bother to show. Preliminary2 national turn-out of 59.1% was also lower - as anticipated - than the 2004 Election (60.9%) and the uptick in 2006 (64.7%).
Indeed "voter apathy" was a problem in my own riding of Edmonton-Strathcona. However it was in the other direction. Voter turnout - a healthy 65.4% - was from the wrong side. It would appear that many disaffected and/or uninspired Liberals switched their votes to the ever-persistent NDP Candidate, Linda DUNCAN and too many "tethered conservatives" abstained on Election Day narrowly denying incumbent Conservative Rahim JAFFER a victory.
A final issue that has arisen in post-election chatter is the newly amended Elections Canada Act. Firstly, many have complained that the stringent "Voter ID" rules damaged access to the ballot boxes and in some situation were incorrectly enforced - leading to eligible voters being turned away. Still others found the delays due to incorrect voter names and address information unconscionable and that many were discouraged from voting as a result. Secondly, there has been speculation that the "Third Party Lobbying" rules could be broken when various Premiers rail against Federal Political Parties - as Ontario's Dalton McGINTY and Newfoundland's Premier Danny WILLIAMS did during the campaign. I can only hope that Elections Canada gags him. Of course, those issues should be weighted with the thoughts expressed by Brian KALT, that we are still better served than U.S voters.
[Addendum: Oct 16 National Post "Censored by Elections Canada" Editorial again brings up the staggered voter hours - that has been endlessly debated in the past - as a cause for concern. I disagree, it is a minor issue compared to the gag law and other election law issues as mentioned above. See also ABC News "Laws disenfranchised 1 million indigenious Canadians" which highlight the Voter ID issue, but overstates for a headline. ]
Footnotes:
1) 2008 Sept 10 Dissolution of 39th Parliament, the Consevatives held 127, Liberal 95, BQ 48, NDP 30 and Independents 4 (including 1 Green) - there were 4 Byelections pending that were expected to go to 1 Liberal, 1 BQ and 1 NDP (and 1 a tossup between Conservative/Liberals) .
2) www.elections.ca indicate voters of 13.833/23.401 million eligible.
[I note the uusual CPC candidate of Sharon SMITH in Skeena-Bulkey Valley, BC (ED#59025) who came in 2nd by 4,500 votes (7.5% of registered voters) - losing to NDP Nathan CULLEN. Sharon was the infamous "nude" ex-mayor of Houston BC.] (Storey here)
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Quebec faces secular "crisis of values"
This article reminded me of another piece this week where the Catholic Bishop of Scranton PA warned the flock NOT to vote for any presidential Candidate who supported Abortion. In case it was not clear Barack OBAMA was identified as the candidate who would be denied the host (if he happened to be through Scranton!). That article highlighted the conundrum faced by Roman Catholics and shows the breakdown of traditional voting support for the Democrats.
Referring to Quebec Archbishop Cardinal Marc OUELLET the piece was timed - of course - to coincide with our Federal Election. In it Cardinal OUELLET warned that "the spiritual and cultural void is fueled by cliche-ridden, anti-catholic rhetoric that we often find in the media."
Strangely, a survey was released at about the same time, stating that "Quebecer's suffer greater levels of stress than other Canadians". (Is it possible that the two are related?)
Given that the BQ is a logical contradiction (they exist as a Federal political party to deny that Canada should exist) who's policies closely resemble the NDP (except in french) I found this of interest. The political history of Conservatism in Quebec has been closely aligned with the Catholic Church going back to the Dupleisse era. That Pierre TRUDEAU was one of the intoxicating ideologues who ushered in the "Quiet Revolution" is well remembered. (Now that his son - Justin TRUDEAU - is running in the Papineau riding of Montreal.)
Can these two strands of thought be woven together again?
[Addendum: Oct 16 National Post "Courting the religious right" by Fr. Ray de Souza discusses Senator OBAMA's courting of Catholic voters - traditionally Democrats. OBAMA is identified as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever - even more so than Hillary CLINTON or Joe BIDEN. 1) He is in favour of partial-birth abortion, 2) He is against parental-notification for minors seeking abortions, 3) He is against "conscience-clauses" for doctors who refuse to do abortions, 4) He favours federal funding of abortions, 5) He has committed himself to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" which would eliminate any abortion regulations devised in all 50 states, and 6) if consistent with his past legislative actions he could vote against the "Born- Alive" Act that mandates full legal protection of any child who survives a late-term abortion - as he did when he abstained when the vote passed in the Senate and as he voted in a near identical bill before the Illinois Senate in 2003. By adopting the most extreme pro-abortion position of any presidential candidate he may have created an unbridgeable gap with pro-life voters.]
Referring to Quebec Archbishop Cardinal Marc OUELLET the piece was timed - of course - to coincide with our Federal Election. In it Cardinal OUELLET warned that "the spiritual and cultural void is fueled by cliche-ridden, anti-catholic rhetoric that we often find in the media."
Strangely, a survey was released at about the same time, stating that "Quebecer's suffer greater levels of stress than other Canadians". (Is it possible that the two are related?)
Given that the BQ is a logical contradiction (they exist as a Federal political party to deny that Canada should exist) who's policies closely resemble the NDP (except in french) I found this of interest. The political history of Conservatism in Quebec has been closely aligned with the Catholic Church going back to the Dupleisse era. That Pierre TRUDEAU was one of the intoxicating ideologues who ushered in the "Quiet Revolution" is well remembered. (Now that his son - Justin TRUDEAU - is running in the Papineau riding of Montreal.)
Can these two strands of thought be woven together again?
[Addendum: Oct 16 National Post "Courting the religious right" by Fr. Ray de Souza discusses Senator OBAMA's courting of Catholic voters - traditionally Democrats. OBAMA is identified as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever - even more so than Hillary CLINTON or Joe BIDEN. 1) He is in favour of partial-birth abortion, 2) He is against parental-notification for minors seeking abortions, 3) He is against "conscience-clauses" for doctors who refuse to do abortions, 4) He favours federal funding of abortions, 5) He has committed himself to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" which would eliminate any abortion regulations devised in all 50 states, and 6) if consistent with his past legislative actions he could vote against the "Born- Alive" Act that mandates full legal protection of any child who survives a late-term abortion - as he did when he abstained when the vote passed in the Senate and as he voted in a near identical bill before the Illinois Senate in 2003. By adopting the most extreme pro-abortion position of any presidential candidate he may have created an unbridgeable gap with pro-life voters.]
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Those who refuse to pass their conceits are destined to be reminded?
Apologies to SANTAYANA1. I note that this book is coming out soon. Likewise, when Margaret MACMILLAN had her last book launched "The Uses and Abuses of History" she managed to have an excerpt printed in the National Post that highlighted the same controversy. Perhaps this is just opportunism?
However I am sympathetic to our veterans. My father was one of them until his death in 2000 - and he never spoke glowingly of his wartime experience. I think he was just glad to have survived - unlike many of his compatriots. Survivor guilt perhaps.
What I think is wrong is to re-evaluate the morality of war - after the fact. Revisionist History. War is hell - pure and simple - you either win and live or lose and die. How do we moralize that? I am sure there were probably alot of terrible things done by our us and our Allies, but they were also fighting against another tyrannical dictator who was ruthless. We now know more about the atrocity's of Buchenwald and Auschwitz that our parents did at the time - which was perhaps before the bombing of Dresden. I know that the London Blitz was as much a terror campaign as strategic bombing because my mother's family were subjected to it. My aunt patrolled the community weekly looking for anyone who had not put up blackout curtains for months on end. The fear of not knowing if your home would be hit was real. Do not tell me that was not Hitlers and Goering's intention.
[Addendum: Oct 16 A number of letters have been printed in the National Post - many from veterans - who object along the same lines. The one that was most satisfying was this one who throws the impertinant lines at the end of the article, back at them.]
Footnote:
1) George SANTAYANA The Life of Reason 1906. "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This has produced numerous paraphraseings and variants.
However I am sympathetic to our veterans. My father was one of them until his death in 2000 - and he never spoke glowingly of his wartime experience. I think he was just glad to have survived - unlike many of his compatriots. Survivor guilt perhaps.
What I think is wrong is to re-evaluate the morality of war - after the fact. Revisionist History. War is hell - pure and simple - you either win and live or lose and die. How do we moralize that? I am sure there were probably alot of terrible things done by our us and our Allies, but they were also fighting against another tyrannical dictator who was ruthless. We now know more about the atrocity's of Buchenwald and Auschwitz that our parents did at the time - which was perhaps before the bombing of Dresden. I know that the London Blitz was as much a terror campaign as strategic bombing because my mother's family were subjected to it. My aunt patrolled the community weekly looking for anyone who had not put up blackout curtains for months on end. The fear of not knowing if your home would be hit was real. Do not tell me that was not Hitlers and Goering's intention.
[Addendum: Oct 16 A number of letters have been printed in the National Post - many from veterans - who object along the same lines. The one that was most satisfying was this one who throws the impertinant lines at the end of the article, back at them.]
Footnote:
1) George SANTAYANA The Life of Reason 1906. "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This has produced numerous paraphraseings and variants.
Monday, 6 October 2008
Million, Billion, Googol or Boon Doogle
Given the Global Financial Meltdown this idea by Russell CROWE didn't seem half bad (also a little unkind - I mean he didn't vaporize the banks). And his calculation was right but he failed to get the "translation" correct. Giving US$1 million to 300 million Americans would be US$300 TRILLION (or US$300 x 10^12) or the same as 429 x $700 billion in U.S Government Bail-Out Packages! 1But he is not alone as many people have trouble with such BIG NUMBERS - and for good reason. In America and Global Financial Markets, these are the definitions that count.
- a Million is 10^6 ( 1,000,000) = 1,000 x 1,000
- a Billion is 10^9 (1,000,000,000) = 1 thousand x 1 Million
- a Trillion is 10^12 (1,000,000,000,000) = 1 thousand x 1 Billion (or 1 million x million)
Such fascination with large number concepts has a rich history. The ancient Greeks largest term was a Myriad (or 10, 000) but Archimedes was attributed to introducing the term a Myriad-Myriad (100 million or 10^8) when he tried to estimate the size of the universe. This tradition continues to this day in the name of the remarkablly sucessful internet search engine company, Google Inc. - it's name derives from the term Googol which refers to 10^100 as invented by American mathematician Edward Kastner.
Footnotes:
1) Table shows Total Obligations of the U.S Federal Government as $67.3 trillion at April 30, 2007. As such, Mr. CROWE's $1 million plan would represent 5x the combined total obligations of the U.S Government. This is clearly insane and unsustainable.
2) Source: Grant's Interest Rate Letter - July 25, 2008. These figures are drawn from various sources by Grant's, but there is no single disclosure source (that I know of). Components can be found referenced here: A) Total U.S Public Debt o/s - Dec 2007, www.treasurydirect.gov Public Debt Reports: Monthly Statements of the Public Debt. B) Federal Employee & Veteran Benefits, U.S Dept of Health & Human Services - Note 12. Federal Employee and Veterans Benefits: At September 30, 2007, the actuarial present value of accumulated plan pension benefits was $7,575 million, of which $578 million was not vested, and the liability for medical benefits was actuarially determined to be $697 million. C) Expected Expenditures for Social Security. The projected actuarial deficit in the OASDI Trust Fund over the infinite future is 3.2 percent of taxable payroll (1.1 percent of GDP), or $13.6 trillion in present value terms. Current deficit is $4.3 trillion (in 2007). D) Expected Expenditures for Medicare, U.S Dept of Health & Human Services - Note 11. Entitlement Benefits Due and Payable, footnotes refer to "Medicare benefits payable consists of a $35,063 million estimate ($36,628 million in FY 2006) by CMS Office of the Actuary of Medicare services incurred but not paid as of September 30, 2007." E) Ginne Mae Guarantees: na F) FHLB Liabilities: na G) Fannie and Freddie MBS & Liabilities: na H) FDIC Insured Deposits: na
Some fun webtools
This website - www.wordle.net - composes word clouds depending on text input. The image below was generated from Martin LUTHER KING Jr. Aug 23 1963 speech "I have a dream".
© 2008 Jonathan Feinberg subscribe Creative Commons License
Still another website allows one to create quite sophisticated logos/graphics for website use. And this link for free HTML code
And here is a Greeting Card Generator.
And here is another useful link for my daughters math homework.
© 2008 Jonathan Feinberg subscribe Creative Commons License
Still another website allows one to create quite sophisticated logos/graphics for website use. And this link for free HTML code
And here is a Greeting Card Generator.
And here is another useful link for my daughters math homework.
Friday, 3 October 2008
Fight Nite!
Canada CardStarring
Stephen "Uncle Stevie" HARPER
vs.
"Taliban" Jack LAYTON
and
Stephane "The Professor" DION
and
Gilles "Hollywood" DUCEPPE
and
Elizabeth "Just glad to be here" MAY.
"Taliban" Jack LAYTON
and
Stephane "The Professor" DION
and
Gilles "Hollywood" DUCEPPE
and
Elizabeth "Just glad to be here" MAY.
America Card
Starring
Starring
Sarah "Annie Okley" PALIN
vs.
Joe "VAWA" BIDEN
vs.
Joe "VAWA" BIDEN
It was a great night with a "4-on-1 Beat-Down" in Canada and Light/Heavyweight ticket in St. Louis.
I thought Harper did well just to survive the unrelenting attacks by the other 4 leaders. He never lost it - which must have been hard - whereas Dion did not manage to lay any solid punches. "Taliban" Jack was perhaps the strongest opponent in the ring and he brawled incessantly but Harper seemed able to adroitly side-step his KO punches. Layton and Harper were the only ones who got cheap shots away at each other. Layton started early with his "are you hiding your platform under your sweater?" jab below the belt and 2 rounds later Harper almost got away with "I was the only the leader who didn't use private healthcare" head butt before Referee Pakin cautioned him. Yet the heavy slugging was clearly wearing Jack down by the final rounds - but he kept trying - hoping one of his flurries would earn him extra points. Duceppe's showed a shrewd move when outta nowhere he caught Harper off-guard with his "elitest culture and gala" hook, but Harper came back with "the Québécois nation resolution" that drew blood. Rookie May surprised everyone by occasionally punching above her weight and staying with a "rope-a-dope" strategy. Despite being water-girl for previous Liberal Heavyweights, May was concentrating on staying in the ring for her first pro fight and only tested harper with a few, opportunistic jabs. The clear winner after 12 rounds - Harper, but just by a TKO.
I was unable to tear myself away from the Canadian title match, but it semed Palin matched Biden toe-to-toe throughout the night. It ended very close to a draw with Biden just edging out Palin on style points. I hope to see the tapes later.
I thought Harper did well just to survive the unrelenting attacks by the other 4 leaders. He never lost it - which must have been hard - whereas Dion did not manage to lay any solid punches. "Taliban" Jack was perhaps the strongest opponent in the ring and he brawled incessantly but Harper seemed able to adroitly side-step his KO punches. Layton and Harper were the only ones who got cheap shots away at each other. Layton started early with his "are you hiding your platform under your sweater?" jab below the belt and 2 rounds later Harper almost got away with "I was the only the leader who didn't use private healthcare" head butt before Referee Pakin cautioned him. Yet the heavy slugging was clearly wearing Jack down by the final rounds - but he kept trying - hoping one of his flurries would earn him extra points. Duceppe's showed a shrewd move when outta nowhere he caught Harper off-guard with his "elitest culture and gala" hook, but Harper came back with "the Québécois nation resolution" that drew blood. Rookie May surprised everyone by occasionally punching above her weight and staying with a "rope-a-dope" strategy. Despite being water-girl for previous Liberal Heavyweights, May was concentrating on staying in the ring for her first pro fight and only tested harper with a few, opportunistic jabs. The clear winner after 12 rounds - Harper, but just by a TKO.
I was unable to tear myself away from the Canadian title match, but it semed Palin matched Biden toe-to-toe throughout the night. It ended very close to a draw with Biden just edging out Palin on style points. I hope to see the tapes later.
Thursday, 2 October 2008
Healthcare Myth - Who is better?
Healthcare has always been a "sacred cow" in Canada during past elections - and usually it comes down to assertion that "we have the best in the world" while pointing to massive infrastructure investments like the Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute which is being completed at the University of Alberta here in Edmonton.
Liberals and NDP politicians usually take a "Don't Touch" attitude to any debate about Healthcare that quickly polarizes into support for a Public or Private delivery system. Such an attitude truly does not reflect what has been happening in the healthcare system for decades. It is not monolthic and it has been evolving and adapting - and very well - to a "mixed" environment for years.
The (infamous) Shouldice Clinic, Catholic Orders, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Testing Labs etc. - all of them are mixed public/private healthcare operations which have been accommodating, sharing and thriving in the existing Healthcare system. Such public/private partnerships have not weakened the provisions of Universal Healthcare under the Federal Canada Health Act as many insist.
Yet this much should be very clear, the Federal Conservative party has no intention of revoking Universal Heathcare. However any party in power that is honest must admit that fiscal responsibility demands the current model needs study (without revoking the laws of gravity). Given the massive financial resources needed, we have to get past solutions constrained by ideology.
Even in the US election, Barak OBAMA has indicated he favours "importing" some aspects of the "Canadian Universal Healthcare Model" into the US in order to serve those 47 millions Americans who cannot afford private coverage.
Yet is the Canadian Model "better"?
Liberals and NDP politicians usually take a "Don't Touch" attitude to any debate about Healthcare that quickly polarizes into support for a Public or Private delivery system. Such an attitude truly does not reflect what has been happening in the healthcare system for decades. It is not monolthic and it has been evolving and adapting - and very well - to a "mixed" environment for years.
The (infamous) Shouldice Clinic, Catholic Orders, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Testing Labs etc. - all of them are mixed public/private healthcare operations which have been accommodating, sharing and thriving in the existing Healthcare system. Such public/private partnerships have not weakened the provisions of Universal Healthcare under the Federal Canada Health Act as many insist.
Yet this much should be very clear, the Federal Conservative party has no intention of revoking Universal Heathcare. However any party in power that is honest must admit that fiscal responsibility demands the current model needs study (without revoking the laws of gravity). Given the massive financial resources needed, we have to get past solutions constrained by ideology.
Even in the US election, Barak OBAMA has indicated he favours "importing" some aspects of the "Canadian Universal Healthcare Model" into the US in order to serve those 47 millions Americans who cannot afford private coverage.
Yet is the Canadian Model "better"?
- The 47 million figure in the US maybe misleading. For many of these uninsured it is a temporary condition due to unemployment, retirement, disability or critical illness - and the true figure is likely half that representing 7.9% of the population.
- StatsCan estimated that 1.7 million Canadians or 6% of the population - could not find a Family Physician an in 2007. Without a family physician they cannot access primary care or elective surgery referrals. Is this not the same thing as not having Healthcare insurance?
- Americans have 327% more MRI units and 183% more CT Scanners per capita.
- Americans receive 100% more inpatient surgical procedures per capita.
- American wait-times are lower across the board for most common hospital procedures.
- American has more doctors and nurses per capita.
- American hospital facilities are newer and more modern.
- Americans have greater access to more ground-breaking drugs (even experimental) and procredures.
- Just like zero% unemployment is unrealistic in a large, dynamic economy, there may always be a certain percentage of the population who can not reasonablly access Healthcare for good (and unsinister) reasons. So while 100% coverage makes good politics, it may not actually be a realistic benchmark. Perhaps 95% would be better.
- Americans pay more per capita but receive greater "value" - as defined by faster testing, better procedures and more effective pharmacololgy. Given the similarity of practice models and mobility between our two countries, the amount they pay may not be too different to what the similar services would cost Canadians.
Ontario Justice takes 2 body blows - same day.
Two scathing reviews of Ontario Government departments were released today.
The Province of Ontario's Ombudsman issued "Oversight Unseen" which was a review of the Ontario Attorney General's Special Investigation Unit (SIU) which investigates all police incidents that result in serious injury or death to a civilian. Established in 1990 the SIU has become "Timid and fearful of it's watchdog role". Charges are rarely laid - as in 2006 when only 2 were made out of 226 investigations. The Ombudsman, Mr. Andre MARIN made 46 recommendations to improve operations was also in charge of the SIU from 1995-98. To undertake new leadership of the department in order to study and possibly implement the review, the province has just named a Crown attorney and a former defence lawyer who has defended and prosecuted police officers - Mr. Ian D. Scott.
In addition the Goudge Inquiry released its report into Office of the Chief Corners of Ontario regarding their management practices and lack of proper oversight of pediatric forensic pathologist Dr. Charles SMITH. Retired Ontario Superior Court Justice GOUDGE indicated that the senior management of the Coroners Office failed the public.
Both cases reveal the systemic problems in the adminstration of justice and a public loss of confidence.
The Province of Ontario's Ombudsman issued "Oversight Unseen" which was a review of the Ontario Attorney General's Special Investigation Unit (SIU) which investigates all police incidents that result in serious injury or death to a civilian. Established in 1990 the SIU has become "Timid and fearful of it's watchdog role". Charges are rarely laid - as in 2006 when only 2 were made out of 226 investigations. The Ombudsman, Mr. Andre MARIN made 46 recommendations to improve operations was also in charge of the SIU from 1995-98. To undertake new leadership of the department in order to study and possibly implement the review, the province has just named a Crown attorney and a former defence lawyer who has defended and prosecuted police officers - Mr. Ian D. Scott.
In addition the Goudge Inquiry released its report into Office of the Chief Corners of Ontario regarding their management practices and lack of proper oversight of pediatric forensic pathologist Dr. Charles SMITH. Retired Ontario Superior Court Justice GOUDGE indicated that the senior management of the Coroners Office failed the public.
Both cases reveal the systemic problems in the adminstration of justice and a public loss of confidence.
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
Is CBC a nest of left-wing vipers?
[Update2: Oct 2 - CBC said it will meeting a reporter - Isabelle Guilbeault, who reports on arts for the morning radio show in Quebec City - for recorded a 30-second filmed spot for a campaign called "Unite our voices" to protest Conservative cuts in culture subsidies and prevent the party's re-election.]
I am beginning to think that anyone who works for the Federal Government should be dis-enfranchised (not permitted to vote in Federal elections) due to the the conflict of interest they find themselves. Honest! Liberals and NDP mostly all work for the Government. If they really has to earn an honest day's wage they couldn't cut it.
[Update1: Sept 30 - CBC accepts the blog has generated substantial criticism and has "pulled the piece". Head of News - John Cruickshank states the problem lies not with the piece but editorial control and lack of diversity in viewpoint. ]
This blog by CBC Journalist Heather MALLICK raised a stink at the National Post. Johnathon KAY also logged in on basically the same topic. When she was at the Globe & Mail I rarely gave Ms. MALLICK much attention.
I do think that such unadulterated smears demean any news organization that allows them, but that is for the to CBC to decide. Sometimes news organizations hear from their readers via letter campaigns, from subjects in defamation and libel lawsuits, customers "voting with their feet" and even shareholders.
However the CBC is a different news organization than Canwest Global, the CTV/Globe & Mail or Torstar in as much as it is taxpayer funded. So I think the point made is "should our tax dollars be used against us?".
The breadth and power of the state to abuse should not be overlooked, under-estimated or unappreciated. I merely point to the antic's of the many HRC's across the country - which have allowed an instrument of the state to trammel unhindered over many innocent lives with little or no recourse to stop any abuse of individuals rights. We can see the same circumstances in Education, Law Courts and Healthcare - where rights of the majority have been subjugated to attack by various vocal minorities.
How are these issue relevant to the CBC? Many will defend the CBC as a top tier news organization, and I would not disagree. I depend on it mightily and I can usually count on them getting the facts right and eventually they get the context or interpretation right as well. Still others - supporters from left and right - will defend the CBC as being representative of many left and right-wing viewpoints. That would at least be fair. Sort of like the deary "free time political broadcasts" that used to clutter the airwaves just before the signed-off for the night. The full spectrum of political viewpoints should be represented at the CBC because it is a state run organization. Canada should not emulate Russia 's media control.
Unfortunately I believe the ranks of the CBC are filled with nothing BUT left-wing and liberal supporters - much like many other federal government departments. If they could be trusted to bring even-handed and balanced viewpoints to the table they would not be accused of political bias, but they don't and they haven't. There is no pressure to advocate for right-wing, conservative viewpoints at the CBC, just the need to sing along with their comrade brothers and sisters. They are subject to group-think of the worst kind. This is because they are - like the examples above - organized as instruments of the state and lack the controls that govern private behaviour and organizations.
Therefore, surgery is required at the CBC.
reference - http://www.heathermallick.ca/home/
Footnotes:
1) National Post Sept 2, 2008 "When Jill wants to be a Jack". According to Statscan "Gay Pride: by the numbers" 1.5% of the adult population +18 self identify as Homosexual (Gay or Lesbian). How is it that 98.5% of the population must bow to the apparent wishes of 1.5%?
2) National Post Oct 1, 2008 "Charles Smith Inquiry" 20 of 45 criminally suspicious deaths he investigated between 1991 and 2001 were found to be in error in reviews by other pathologists. Among these cases lie the wreckage of families destroyed by convictions of "shaken baby syndrome" where parents were sent to jail.
3) It is unknowable how many succumbed to the cancer due to improper treatment at an early stage, but one can assume it was - eventually - all of them (or whatever the incidence of untreated cancer is). Nurse tells Inquiry of painful calls to widowers - CBC News Sept 23, 2008
4) There must be some kind of "secret bee dance" among bureaucratic organizations that drives them to "play nice" with each other and adopt common legal barriers amongst themselves. To wit how the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons were on the brink of changing their Standards of Practice to prohibit Doctors from exercising their right of personal conscience in advising treatment for client's to avoid potential HRC prosecutions this summer. Opposition from members and the national organization led to the amendment being withdrawn.
I am beginning to think that anyone who works for the Federal Government should be dis-enfranchised (not permitted to vote in Federal elections) due to the the conflict of interest they find themselves. Honest! Liberals and NDP mostly all work for the Government. If they really has to earn an honest day's wage they couldn't cut it.
[Update1: Sept 30 - CBC accepts the blog has generated substantial criticism and has "pulled the piece". Head of News - John Cruickshank states the problem lies not with the piece but editorial control and lack of diversity in viewpoint. ]
This blog by CBC Journalist Heather MALLICK raised a stink at the National Post. Johnathon KAY also logged in on basically the same topic. When she was at the Globe & Mail I rarely gave Ms. MALLICK much attention.
I do think that such unadulterated smears demean any news organization that allows them, but that is for the to CBC to decide. Sometimes news organizations hear from their readers via letter campaigns, from subjects in defamation and libel lawsuits, customers "voting with their feet" and even shareholders.
However the CBC is a different news organization than Canwest Global, the CTV/Globe & Mail or Torstar in as much as it is taxpayer funded. So I think the point made is "should our tax dollars be used against us?".
The breadth and power of the state to abuse should not be overlooked, under-estimated or unappreciated. I merely point to the antic's of the many HRC's across the country - which have allowed an instrument of the state to trammel unhindered over many innocent lives with little or no recourse to stop any abuse of individuals rights. We can see the same circumstances in Education, Law Courts and Healthcare - where rights of the majority have been subjugated to attack by various vocal minorities.
- In B.C., "Gay lifestyle" is being "promoted" in grade school under the domain of HRC-threatened "sexual equality". 1
- In Ontario, pediatric forensic pathologist Dr. Charles SMITH has been the subject of an inquiry for convictions from misleading evidence he presented during 1991-2001 acknowledging his disorganization, arrogance and the dogmatic manner in which he often presented evidence as an expert witness resulted in a "wrongful conviction factory". 2
- Incorrect testing by a lab at a Newfoundland Healthcare Region for 6 years led to 386 cancer patients receiving an improper diagnosis of their cancer illness. Clearly, bureaucratic procedures and attitudes protected the bureaucrats and inhibited discovery of errors that led to many untimely deaths. (It is very difficult to conclusively untangle exactly how many premature deaths occured from mis-diagnosis - or how much it may have directly reduced their lifespan and ending quality of life - versus what may have happened if the cancers were properly treated.) 3, 4
How are these issue relevant to the CBC? Many will defend the CBC as a top tier news organization, and I would not disagree. I depend on it mightily and I can usually count on them getting the facts right and eventually they get the context or interpretation right as well. Still others - supporters from left and right - will defend the CBC as being representative of many left and right-wing viewpoints. That would at least be fair. Sort of like the deary "free time political broadcasts" that used to clutter the airwaves just before the signed-off for the night. The full spectrum of political viewpoints should be represented at the CBC because it is a state run organization. Canada should not emulate Russia 's media control.
Unfortunately I believe the ranks of the CBC are filled with nothing BUT left-wing and liberal supporters - much like many other federal government departments. If they could be trusted to bring even-handed and balanced viewpoints to the table they would not be accused of political bias, but they don't and they haven't. There is no pressure to advocate for right-wing, conservative viewpoints at the CBC, just the need to sing along with their comrade brothers and sisters. They are subject to group-think of the worst kind. This is because they are - like the examples above - organized as instruments of the state and lack the controls that govern private behaviour and organizations.
Therefore, surgery is required at the CBC.
reference - http://www.heathermallick.ca/home/
Footnotes:
1) National Post Sept 2, 2008 "When Jill wants to be a Jack". According to Statscan "Gay Pride: by the numbers" 1.5% of the adult population +18 self identify as Homosexual (Gay or Lesbian). How is it that 98.5% of the population must bow to the apparent wishes of 1.5%?
2) National Post Oct 1, 2008 "Charles Smith Inquiry" 20 of 45 criminally suspicious deaths he investigated between 1991 and 2001 were found to be in error in reviews by other pathologists. Among these cases lie the wreckage of families destroyed by convictions of "shaken baby syndrome" where parents were sent to jail.
3) It is unknowable how many succumbed to the cancer due to improper treatment at an early stage, but one can assume it was - eventually - all of them (or whatever the incidence of untreated cancer is). Nurse tells Inquiry of painful calls to widowers - CBC News Sept 23, 2008
4) There must be some kind of "secret bee dance" among bureaucratic organizations that drives them to "play nice" with each other and adopt common legal barriers amongst themselves. To wit how the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons were on the brink of changing their Standards of Practice to prohibit Doctors from exercising their right of personal conscience in advising treatment for client's to avoid potential HRC prosecutions this summer. Opposition from members and the national organization led to the amendment being withdrawn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)