Hack Pundit Of The Week: Mark Steyn

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

Regardless of the politics of Anders Behring Breivik, his politics weren't responsible for his alleged crime. Holding extremist views in itself doesn't lead you to commit a crime; but it certainly is no hindrance.

If you espouse the idea that Muslims threaten your way of life which is only made possible through the multiculturalism of progressives, it's understandable that you would resent both Muslims and progressives. After all, your way of life is in peril, right?

More and more however, this idea has been gaining traction and can't be characterized as "extremism".

US Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich echoes those sentiments.

So when Breivik shoots up a youth camp of the left-wing Labour Party, people naturally try to figure out why this took place. Breivik provides us with a rambling 1,500 page manifesto. Some of it plagiarized, some of it his own writing. It's inevitable that not all of its content pertains to his motivation to kill those within the Labour Party. Therefore, the passages that suggest this course of action would be especially salient, would they not?

Is it therefore only fair that judges of high rank with party affiliations to the Labour Party and the other parties who support multiculturalism (and therefore Islamisation) is to be considered category B or C traitors? They obviously have a considerable responsibility and should be considered traitors of their people.

So there you go: traitors. So it's reasonable to assume that this fanatic understood the problem within Norway to be the Labour Party's support of multiculturalism which, he believes, will lead to "Islamisation".

Not so if you're Mark Steyn!

Seth Rogan's Islamophobic
older brother? 

Mark Steyn has a problem. His problem is that he is of the same mind with Breivik regarding Muslims and multiculturalism. Also, he was quoted in Breivik's manifesto. He decides to take solace in the fact that Breivik quoted a lot of other people in his manifesto such as "Churchill, Gandhi, Orwell, Jefferson, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain".

I'm sure it's comforting for him. It's entirely wrong, but it's comforting. When your livelihood is made possible through publishing such books as "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It", "Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West" and next title will be "After America: Get Ready for Armageddon", self-reflection is a luxury you can't afford. He argues:

So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “Islamophobic” mass murder? As far as we know, not a single Muslim was among the victims. Islamophobia seems an eccentric perspective to apply to this atrocity, and comes close to making the actual dead mere bit players in their own murder.

Steyn is unable to see the link between the violence directed towards the youth wing of a left-of-centre political group that supports multiculturalism when Breivik sees them as traitors.

Of course not! Why?

It is unclear how seriously this “manifesto” should be taken.

Steyn's argument is that if you plagiarize parts of your 1,500 page manifesto, you don't mean any of it. Blinders are not worn only by horses anymore. If you can stomach watching the 12 minute video that Breivik had released, it seems pretty much inline with the fear-mongering that Steyn promotes to his readers.

Remember after 9/11 when the identity of the attackers was revealed to the world? The initial reaction in some of the Muslim world was one of disbelief. Some argued that the Americans did it to themselves to spark a war against Islam. Others suggested Osama Bin Laden was a CIA operative. Some argued that because they drank alcohol, they weren't true adherents to Islam. There was a strong reluctance to admit that the extremists among them were responsible for this heinous act.

I guess people the world over aren't that different after all.

Blogging Tories: Right-Wing Extremist? What Right-Wing Extremist?

The deaths, terror, injuries, pain and loss that Norwegians suffered as a result of the terrorist attack outweigh, by far, any political considerations. It matters little what political beliefs are held by deranged murderers that put so little a value on life. If one of your siblings, parents or children died as a result of a terrorist attack, you'd take little comfort in knowing whether or not the killer had a deep appreciation of "The Communist Manifesto" or thought Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" was the highest achievement in literature.

But politics were at play here as the bomb was set-off near a government building and a shooting rampage took place at a retreat for the youth wing of Norway's Labour Party. Mind you, it's important to properly characterize politics at play here. The perpetrator of these actions was allegedly Anders Behring Breivik. However, I cannot point to those on the Right - even the far-right - and blame them for his actions. But we don't live outside of culture. And the climate of fear that is created by politics does play a part in shaping our thoughts:

Norway's Progress Party ad: "The perpetrator is of foreign origin!"

An advertisement such as this doesn't pose the question of whether or not current policies on immigration provide the optimal results for integrating immigrants within Norwegian society but rather frames the debate around the danger of immigrants. While the far-right is entitled to the belief that immigration should be eliminated, increasing the antagonism towards immigrants with ads like these worsens any existing divide. It fuels paranoia and adds to existing tensions.

But to see their deaths as a result of their politics would be to adopt the worldview of the killer. It is believed that the alleged shooter, Breivik, sought to start an anti-Muslim Crusade. His targeting of those that were sympathetic to immigrants seems evidence of that. But regardless of your political views, no one deserves to be the victim of a car bomb. No one deserves to be hunted down and shot as a result of their views on immigration whether they hold opinions on the Right or the Left. The great majority on the Right would agree with this statement.

It's a perfectly legitimate and necessary exercise to point out the shameful responses that have popped up from this massacre. I'd suggest pointing out the shameful responses to those we normally agree with is just as important. Many progressive blogger have pointed out the stupidity of Michael Coren when he commented on the issue. But we should also reserve some outrage when Michael Moore alludes to collusion between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family over the 9/11 Attacks or the temperamental pundits on the Left that pointed out that the Arizona shootings were a result of the Right's rhetoric. Conversely, FOX News analysts should not have looked at Giffords votes in the House of Representatives and asked "What votes could have set the killer off?"

A quick look at Blogging Tories tells me that introspection and reflection is not the menu:

-SDA has decided to call the alleged killer "the Bill Ayers of Norway".
-Just Right takes exception to the claim by the media that the alleged killer was a "right-wing extremist".
-Barrel Strength notes it was the work of a single, deranged individual. However, the blogger continue to write "sincere belief is no indication of sanity. Else David Suzuki, global warmists, Islamic terrorists, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, PolPot and their followers would all be sane."
-Celestial Junk doesn't like the characterization of the alleged killer as a right-wing extremist. "Christian faith poses no threat to our freedoms or way of life ... unlike the ultra-violently supremacist political system call Islam."
-The way the Ball bounces picks on the NYT for calling a Christian right-wing extremist exactly that.

There are some partial exceptions:

-Diogenes Borealis makes the point that because of the actions of a killer, it does threaten the legitimate debate on immigration.
-Dr. Roy's Thoughts are - as ever - confusing. He begins with a quote from the Bible that expresses a desire for retributive justice. He expresses his ignorance as to "the motivation of this monster" and then rightly denounces the bloodshed. The comments to his post indicate that his readership have... bolder views.

When the extreme Right or Left performs an act of terror, it matters little what the ideology of the terror group. That this man is a right-wing extremist should not deter someone on the Right from holding conservative values. However, more important than the values on the Left or Right are democratic ones that enable our society to hold vibrant debates on these questions. I find the wilful ignorance from the Right that there are extremists among them rather baffling. I mean, there are extremists on the Left as well and I certainly don't condone their actions. It takes greater courage to denounce your own rather than to wrap yourself in a cloak of victimization against those that disagree with you.

Take stock of your own actions. Are you a progressive blogger painting every conservative blogger as a Pamela Geller fan? In turn, do conservative bloggers see every progressive blogger as supporters of Palestinian suicide bombers? If you can't look at those with opposing viewpoints without demonizing them, you've got a skewed view of reality. Why would you listen to those that disagree with you if you believe they support the most inhuman acts? If you sincerely believe that your opponents are evil, then why wouldn't you take drastic actions against them?

There is a term for those that lack empathy for others...


Sam Richards: A radical experiment in empathy

Cultural Amuse-Bouche: Michael Sandel's "Justice"

Earlier this week, Michael Sandel was the featured guest on The Colbert Report. The philosophy professor at Harvard spoke of the way philosophy can inform current political debates and help towards a greater understanding on what's at stake. Having taken some philosophy at university some years ago, I still have a deep appreciation for being introduced substantially to great Western thinkers. In the interview, it was mentioned that his classes were available online for free so I checked it out and was quickly hooked by the questions, the ideas, the debates and the examples that were brought forward.

Callin' you out, Libertarians!

Also, I geek out over Kant.

Philosophy only comes alive when it's analyzed and debated. Once fully engaged, your ideas change or crystallize depending on the arguments raised in the debate.

Sandel's "Justice" covers a good range of philosophers (although David Hume was omitted) which are applied to topics such as gay marriage, cost-benefit analysis, affirmative action, torture, taxation, military conscription, meritocracy systems and patriotism.

The video series is a collection of 12 videos lasting around 1 hour each and consist of 24 lectures in all. So that comes out to 12 hours of video. Not recommended for binge watching (my method).

It's an opportunity to engage our moral beliefs into social and political discussions in a way that expands our understanding rather than reducing it. As such, I highly recommend it.

Here's a preview:

Solutions For TV Journalism After Kai Nagata

Kai Nagata's much discussed cri de coeur regarding TV journalism made some waves throughout Canada and specifically within the Canadian media. The reaction ranged from acknowledging that job dissatisfaction is common, providing a rebuttal or sympathizing with his situation. People can criticize or praise him but the reactions aren't as important as finding cures to the ills of Canadian TV media that Nagata diagnosed on his blog.

Nagata: better at spitting rhymes

or dropping knowledge?

We report, you decide.

He mentioned 3 problems with Canadian TV media:

1) The lack of enterprise journalism in TV media
2) There's no Jon Stewart-like comedian in Canada (Jean-Renée Dufort being the French-Canadian exception)
3) There's no Canadian Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow as a counterweight to the Right's commentariat.

Let's begin with the last two points.

Political comedy is difficult to pull off. I don't think Canada can manufacture a Jon Stewart of Stephen Colbert nor should it try to do so. An audience can tell when things are forced or artificial and bad political comedy demoralizes rather than galvanizes the public. That being said: I, for one, welcome our progressive Canadian comedic overlords.

As for a left-leaning opinion-focused TV news channel like MSNBC; that doesn't evoke much enthusiasm in me. I do enjoy Lawrence O'Donnell mocking Donald Trump's attempt to convince the public that - this time - he's serious about running for President. I also smirk as Rachel Maddow pokes fun a Rick Perry's crazy religious associates. However, I find Olbermann a bit of a blowhard and quite the demagogue while Ed Schultz just doesn't interest me. Overall, I enjoy a cleverly worded and incisive opinion piece but I don't think this is what's the greatest need for Canadian media.

This brings up to Nagata's first complaint: enterprise journalism is lacking in Canada's media market. The business expenses aren't rewarded by the ratings they garner. TV networks therefore have all but eliminated it from their budgets.

The solution I propose is the development of a Canadian ProPublica.

It is entirely web-based, dedicated to investigative journalism and intent on serving the public interest. You won't find stories about Will and Kate there but you will find award winning stories about how a single hedge fund was able to magnify the entire 2008 economic crisis through dishonest dealings. They are able to make very technical and specialized language accessible to the general public. They use graphics effectively to foster a clearer understanding of complex stories and doggedly pursue the news over a long period of time.

While the CBC and the Globe and Mail are the most active in using graphics on their web pages, they pale in comparison to ProPublica and The Guardian. The latter provides a treasure-trove of time lines, interactive graphics and charts that highlight their stories in such a way that the reader can understand the wide-ranging scope of a news story.

Even if you haven't hear of ProPublica, you've heard of the media outlets they've teamed up with for stories. They've partnered with "60 Minutes" and PBS on TV to newspapers including The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the New Orleans Times-Picayune and the Chicago Tribune, to NPR News, "This American Life" and "Marketplace" on public radio, to Politico, Slate, Salon and The Daily Beast online, and to the New Yorker, the Atlantic, Newsweek and BusinessWeek magazines.

Wouldn't it be great if such a news organization in Canada could team up with the likes of La Presse, APTN, the Globe and Mail,  CTV, the Vancouver Sun and all the other media outlets? Certain issues just need greater emphasis than others. When Access to Information requests are riddled with delays and arrive almost entirely blacked out, there needs to be long term strategy to pressure the government to do better. The current TV news format just doesn't allow this to happen.

How does ProPublica stay afloat financially? Very wealthy charitable contributions. Who knows? A few veteran journalists with the aid of various charitable organizations in Canada could get something underway with a bit of work. Sounds impossible? It's more likely than CTV or Global dedicating large amounts of funds to investigative journalism.

Putting together the most dynamic, cooperative and informative news website out there? That sounds very Canadian to me.

I'm curious about other opinions, though. Is there a greater need for a clarion call to wake Canadians from their apathy through a left-leaning opinionated news channel? Or is great comedy the only way to rouse Canadians from their indifference? While you ponder that, here's Kai Nagata rapping.

Edelman: The Rupert Murdoch Spin Doctor

The narrative.

From movies to political campaigns to news stories; what drives the public's interest is the narrative.

With the outrage surrounding the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, the emerging narrative is a rather shocking one that's left Rupert Murdoch scrambling.

(Can Edelman make him
look good?)

Enter the PR firm Edelman.

They are a typical PR firm: they steer the public narrative in the direction that's the most positive for their clients.

When Wal-Mart was making over $11 billion in profits from over $351 billion in revenues during 2006, Edelman was sending press releases to right-wing bloggers to criticize any legislation that would be in opposition of Wal-Mart's interest such as the expanding of health care benefits for their employees. And so "flogs" - or fake blogs - were born.

In the UK, they touted the environmental record of the energy company E.ON with stories like "E.ON helps Cumbrian primary school go green" and avoid mentioning their plans to build a coal-fired power station. Edelman has no problem with greenwashing.

Crisis management is a specialized type of public relations. None of it too secret or nefarious. Edelman even provides us with their approach. 

Here's Richard Edelman, the firm's CEO, participating in a discussion group conducted by the Churchill Club discussing "New Trends in Corporate Reputation Management". I don't recommend the 1 hour 30 minute video unless you are fascinated by public relations. Here are the key points to come away from crisis management:

"Judge us by these actions"

The closing of News of the World occurred prior to the hiring of the Edelman firm. It was - quite simply - a miscalculation. Most of the employees had nothing to do with phone hacking. It was a management problem. The closing of the paper was coupled with Murdoch reaffirming his full support of Rebekah Brooks.

Since the PR firm has been on board, that full support disappeared: Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton have "resigned". Before bringing Edelman on board, News Corp dropped their BSkyB bid which would have consolidated even greater power over the media in Britain. That was far from a miscalculation as this has everything to do with News Corp's influence over law enforcement and politicians.

"Personalize it"

Rebekah Brooks, News International's Chief Executive, resigns early in the day on the 15th of July, 2011. Public statements are made available to the press. This is long after she's said on July 21st, 2009 that "The Guardian coverage has, we believe, substantially and likely deliberately misled the British public." 

Les Hinton, who was formerly head of the newspaper arm of News Corp called News International and was until recently the top executive at Dow Jones & Co (publisher of the Wall Street Journal), also resigns. With public statement in tow, he affirms "When I appeared before the Committee in March 2007, I expressed the belief that Clive Goodman had acted alone". However, in 2007, it's more accurate to say that restricting journalists from illegal access was less than a primary concern.

James Murdoch paid out the hush money to phone hacking victims but they'll keep him far in the background...

"Find expert commentary to support your cause."

Steve Doocy and a PR guy.

The repetition of the words "hacking problem" and "piling on" were the two talking points that were repeated in this sorry excuse for an interview. News Corporation were the ones that hacked into cell phones. Deflecting the issue and trying to make this about generic "hacking" seems completely disconnected from reality. The "piling on" claim would have some merit if the corporation hadn't lied for years and years.

I expect more "experts" to emerge. The "hacking problem" narrative will be tossed but the "piling on" narrative will be maintained as it plays extremely well with the existing narrative of Republican persecution within the mainstream media.

"It's no longer about reassuring shareholders but all the stakeholders."

And here was the penitent Murdoch visiting Millie Dowler's family and apologizing. The association of the very disturbing role News of the World played has left an indelible mark. They didn't just hack into a dead girl's phone. They didn't just delete her messages which gave the family false hope she was still alive. News of the World did all this and was then granted an exclusive interview with the Dowlings as they expressed that same hope to those reporters that hacked their dead daughter's phone. They never said anything until they got caught.

"Revealing all misdeeds at once is better than drawing it out in the long term"

Well, that depends just how deep the rabbit hole goes, doesn't it? If this extends to his other British papers and even to some of his American media assets, Mr. Murdoch faces a serious problem. Ofcom, the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries, is looking into whether Rupert Murdoch is a "fit and proper" person to own a media company.

"Someone needs to hear something 5 times before they believe it. Be omnipresent."

Hence the "We are sorry." campaign splayed on every major British newspaper in the country.

So the efforts of Edelman will be to contain the bleeding. They'll focus on assuring the public that those responsible for phone hacking have been dealt with. They'll work to rebuild the News Corp brand that enjoyed a solid reputation in Britain. It will admit some of its failings and try to reingratiate itself with the public in the goal of regaining its trust.

They certainly don't want to focus on the following questions:

1. How pervasive were the bribes to police at News Corp?

2. How much hush money did James Murdoch pay out to victims of phone hacking?

3. Neil Wallis - who's been arrested himself for phone hacking at News of the World - had been hired by the Metropolitan Police in October 2009 to advise the commissioner: why?

4. Why did the police admonish The Guardian on two separate occasions for continuing with its coverage of the phone hacking scandal?

5. Why did Scotland Yard fail to reopen the investigation into phone hacking when there was clear evidence that it was ongoing?

6. Why were politicians so timid in asking questions regarding these allegations?

7. How widespread are these illegal practices within all of News Corp?

Grab the popcorn because what emerges from this saga will dictate who sets the agenda - and writes the narrative - in Britain.

The PQ's Stéphane Bergeron Is Upset With Being Quoted

The recent PQ defections have left some of their caucus members disillusioned with the party and apparently, with reality.

Antoine Robitaille's story in Le Devoir revealed an email by MNA Stéphane Bergeron to a sovereignist militant. The member for Verchères expressed dissatisfaction with PQ leader Pauline Marois. However, in a following press release, he profoundly disagrees with the literal interpretation of his email. For example (my translations):

"The five MNAs that resigned dealt a blow that seriously undermined Pauline Marois's prestige and credibility to carry out our sovereignty project." -Private email version of Stéphane Bergeron

"I believe that Pauline Marois has the will, courage and determination to lead the Parti Québécois. She is the person we need to establish a relationship of trust with the people of Québec, offer a reliable and honest government and most importantly, carry out the sovereignty project." -Press release version of Stéphane Bergeron

(Hello, IT guy? Is there
an "unsend email" button?)

This isn't a "private-email-that-was-written-in-the-heat-of-the-moment-which-includes-regrettable-statements-I-didn't-really-mean" type of backtrack. Oh no! This is the full "this-journalist-is-delirious" type of backtrack! He's "indignant" that people could reach the conclusion that he isn't anything but 100% behind his leader and his party! And yet...

"Imagine the extraordinary hope that would be generated from the appearance, on the Québec political scene, of a progressive and sovereignist coalition... This contrasts with the prevailing gloom and cynicism." -Private email version of Stéphane Bergeron

"Despite the events that have shaken our party, I intend to fight alongside Pauline Marois and all my colleagues in the caucus of the Parti Québécois to continue our hard work to regain the confidence of Quebecers and recommit Québec on the way to full emancipation." -Press release version of Stéphane Bergeron

Stéphane Bergeron is upset because his email was a "call for unity message" which "the journalist mutated into a germ to spread division within the ranks". He takes specific objection with Robitaille's use of the word "inapte" (unsuited) for describing Marois's ability to lead Quebec to sovereignty. It's a weak "call for unity" when you acknowledge that your party leader has had her credibility and prestige undermined. Also, this "call for unity" within the PQ looks less than solid when you look favourably upon a coalition of various progressive sovereignist political parties when, historically, the PQ had the monopoly on the sovereignist vote. His excuse smacks of double talk when he suggests that the PQ is the coalition he was referring to. Strange that this "PQ coalition" has yet to make its appearance on the political scene according to Bergeron.

Honestly, how hard would it have been for him to admit that his pessimism during the various defections led him to express sentiments he now regrets?

CTV Quebec City Bureau Chief Kai Nagata Quits: Rips TV Journalism

In what is the most spectacular long blog post I've read from a TV personality ever, former Quebec City bureau chief Kai Nagata explains why he quit his job.

This came to my attention via Fagstein's blog which is a must read for all things relating to Quebec media.

Kai Nagata's blog post can be found here.

Here are some of the highlights:

CTV's candidates to replace Nagata

-"I admit felt a profound discomfort working in an industry that so casually sexualizes its workforce. Every hiring decision is scrutinized using a skewed, unspoken ratio of talent to attractiveness, where attractiveness often compensates for a glaring lack of other qualifications. The insecurity, self doubt, and body-image issues endured by otherwise confident, intelligent journalists would break your heart. And clearly there’s a double standard, a split along gender lines. But in an environment where a lot of top executives are women, what I’m talking about applies to men as well. The idea has taken root that if the people reporting the news look like your family and neighbours, instead of Barbie and Ken, the station will lose viewers."

-"In this race to the bottom, the less time and money the CBC devotes to enterprise journalism, the less motivation there is for the private networks to maintain credibility by funding their own investigative teams. Even then, “consumer protection” content has largely replaced political accountability."

-"Aside from being overrun by 'Action News' prophets from Iowa, the CBC has another problem: the perception that it’s somehow a haven for left-wing subversives. True or not, the CBC was worried enough about its pinko problem to commission an independent audit of its coverage, in which more consultants tried to quantify “left-wing bias” and, presumably using stopwatches, demonstrate that the CBC gives the Conservative government airtime commensurate with the proportion of seats it holds in the House of Commons."

-"The Canadian right wing, if you want to call it that, has had five years to get the gloves off. With a majority Conservative government in power, they’re putting on brass knuckles. Meanwhile the left is grasping about in a pair of potholders. The only explanation I can think of is they’re too polite, or too scared. If it’s the latter, I think it’s clear enough why."

-"But as a reporter, I feel like I’ve been holding my breath. Every question I asked, every tweet I posted, and even what I said to other journalists and friends had to go through a filter, where my own opinions and values were carefully strained out. Even then I’m not sure I was always successful, but I always knew at the CBC and subsequently at CTV that there were serious consequences for editorial. Within the terms of my employment at CTV, there was a clause in which the corporation (now Bellmedia) literally took ownership of my intellectual property output. If I invented a better mouse trap, they owned the patent."

-"...the people who are supposed to be holding decision makers to account are instead broadcasting useless tripe, or worse, stories that actively distract from the massive projects we need to be tackling instead of watching TV."

-"Right now I need to undertake a long-delayed journey of personal discovery. Having given away all the possessions that didn't fit into my truck, I’ve set out on the road again, heading West. I know I need to go home for a while. I need to surround myself with family and friends. I need to consult, meditate, and plan the next steps.

I’m broke, and yet I know I’m rich in love. I’m unemployed and homeless, but I’ve never been more free.

Everything is possible."

I left out Nagata's views on politics regarding the Stephen Harper government but it's really worth the read. Overall, I'm glad he spoke his mind but I still feel his talents would have been of good use at CTV. He decries the tripe of the Will and Kate Show and I wholeheartedly agree but consider The Guardian's version of the story to the Quebec City protests. It focuses on the protesters as real quirky people while highlighting the absurdity of it all. Also, consider Terry Milewski at CBC who isn't chummy with politicians and asks really tough but fair questions. I have no idea of the pressures that he faced but in every job out there, there's a supervisor that's going to ask you to do things a certain way. I wish he would have been able to comply and yet manage to do the job as he saw would best serve the public interest. But his ideas ring true, TV journalism is often vacuous and insipid.

As the race to the bottom continues, more people will just tune-out.

RCMP "Suspensions": The Unanswered Questions

I blogged about it here as this isn't being investigated by anyone outside of La Presse.

Pierre-André Normandin is following up with his story here. Here are the highlights:

The NDP and Bloc members reacted to the story and were mainly upset by the fact that less than 13% of the suspended RCMP officers were suspended without pay. Considering the seriousness of the accusations, it's puzzling that their suspensions didn't carry an abeyance in pay.

(That's not what I meant when
I suggested "finger cuffs")

NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine stated: "When there are allegations of serious crimes, I can understand that they are suspended with pay for a few months to make sure charges are not false, but not for years. There are ways to speed things up."

The Arbitration Committee of the RCMP, which decides disciplinary matters, said it averages one year to make its decisions. But a number of cases identified by La Presse through the Access to Information Act took several years to be resolved, so that 79 officers, a quarter of documented cases in the last 10 years, eventually retired before the end of the investigation against them.

"If it is a suspension with pay until we prove that the officer is innocent, I can understand. But when they eventually retire, one wonders what is going on. Are these people are guilty and agreed to leave for not making waves?" an indignant Bloc Québécois Maria Mourani exclaimed.

"I'm surprised that the majority of these people received a suspension with pay. It's quite absurd. We are talking about behaviour that involve drugs or the touching of children" said the criminologist.

La Presse did not have comments from Vic Toews, Minister for Public Safety.

Chicoine and Mourani ask important questions: why are investigations taking so many years to complete? Why are the near-totality of those investigated continue to be paid even when faced with some disturbing charges against them? Why did a quarter of these investigations lead to officers taking their retirement before the process was completed?

In other news, the RCMP’s Report on Plans and Priorities 2011-12 forecast a reduction in 1,791 full-time employees over the next two years, and $280 million in spending cuts.

Staff Sgt. Brian Roach, a member of the executive of the RCMP’s staff relations program reacted to the news that the training of recruits for federal and contract policing has fallen from a high of nearly 1,800 in 2009 to under 300 this year by saying Mounties will "work longer hours, carry more files, risk the chance of burnout, cases are worked on a highest-priority (basis) and obviously the lesser priorities (are) the less worked."

Lesser priorities like internal police investigations?

How To Get Suspended From The RCMP

La Presse, by virtue of the Access to Information Act, has the answer!

There are 22,000 RCMP officers in Canada. 396 officers behaved so reprehensibly that they were suspended from active duty since the year 2000. So what's does it take to suspended from the RCMP?

(Wearing high heels was NOT the
biggest offence for RCMP agents)

Nearly a quarter of suspended RCMP officers (89) owe their suspension to inappropriate sexual behaviour.

• An RCMP officer has been suspended with pay in 2000 when he was suspected of "inappropriate contact with a child." He agreed to retire four years later, which put an end to disciplinary action against him.
• Another RCMP agent used his work computer to solicit sex. His efforts appear to have been successful because he was also charged with having sex during his shifts. He was suspended with pay three years before being fired.
• Another officer behaved like a real Casanova at work and was duly suspended. In 2002, he had offered to drop charges against an alleged offender in return for a tryst. The offer appears to have declined since a complaint was filed. The officer was suspended with pay for one year.
• In another case, a police officer in 2004 required the handiwork of prostitutes in his service vehicle during his shift. The same documents indicate he was in uniform at the time of the act. Suspended with pay, he returned to the police three years later.

Second most common problem for RCMP officers? 69 RCMP agents - nearly 17% of those suspended - had problems so severe with drugs and alcohol that it merited a suspension. 

• Here's an example that's both disturbing and comforting: one RCMP agent was arrested in 2001 for drunk driving. He asserted his status as a police officer to avoid a breathalyzer test and had an open bottle of alcohol in his car. Suspended with pay, he returned to the force several months later. Other officers who were intoxicated with the idea to present their badges to avoid trouble were also suspended. So good to see agents reporting the conduct but it's equally disturbing to think the RCMP officer feels that identifying himself as an agent would result in only a wag of the finger.
• Police officers who participated in drug searches were, in turn, caught when their colleagues discovered that some of the drugs seized had mysteriously disappeared. An agent has been suspended without pay since 2010 for allegedly stealing and selling marijuana stored at the police station.

Another 69 officers were suspended for threats and assault.

• In 2005, a police officer was accused of illegally detaining and beating a person only to be abandoned on a lonely road. The officer was initially suspended with pay, he lost his pay in 2006 and finally resigned four years later.
• There are four incidents in which agents allegedly threatened colleagues with their service weapons. Two lost their jobs while the two were reinstated. The case of one of the reinstated officers is particularly disturbing. Not only did he point his gun at two of his colleagues in 2009, but his record indicates that he was also suspected of buying, selling and consuming cocaine. They believed he had links with known criminals and routinely drove his vehicle while impaired. Suspended with pay, he returned to the force several months later.

Fraud also led to the suspension of 31 officers since 2000.

• A policeman was suspended in 2003 for attempting to defraud his insurer, Great-West, of $100,000. The man finally decided to retire a few months later, which put an end to disciplinary action.
• Another, in 2004, would have diverted funds from a humanitarian cause.

There's some misuse of public funds of course but there's some classic cases of negligence.

• In 2002, an officer failed to appear at a trial, which led to the dismissal of a court case which concerned "serious charges". His testimony was a key for the Crown. He was suspended with pay and then regained his position the following year.
• The highest award for negligence, however, goes to four officers who were suspended with pay in 2010 for not having provided assistance to a prisoner who was being assaulted by a fellow detainee. According to the record, the four officers watched as the prisoner forced the other into a sex act without intervening.

The Ban On Cigarillos That Never Was

Remember one year ago when the ban on cigarillos - those flavoured cigarettes that was all the rage with the kids - came into effect?

The CBC informed us that the cigarettes were being "pulled from the shelves". Also, they mentioned that tobacco manufacturers were skirting the ban...

(Asthma never tasted so good)

The "ban" wasn't a ban.

Bill C-32 requires that cigarillos less than 1.4 grams cannot be flavoured or sold in packages of less than 20 units. Since the law doesn't affect cigars more than 1.4 grams, tobacco companies quickly took advantage of the loophole and put cigars weighing just over the required minimum weight on the market.

Currently, the smoking rate is holding steady despite various initiatives at various levels of governments. Here's what we do know:

Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq doesn't care about preventable deaths.

From the Globe and Mail:

• Health Canada is simply not investing adequately in tobacco control. Over the past five years, it has routinely underspent its program budget by $9-million to $15-million annually.
• Investment in mass-media campaigns has dried up; the initial plan was to spend $50-million a year on social marketing, but Health Canada spent $27-million in 2001, falling to $9-million by 2004, then nothing in recent years.
• Smoking rates are highest in aboriginal communities, yet Ottawa inexplicably cancelled the first nations and Inuit tobacco control strategy and replaced it with a few small projects.
• Health Canada’s tobacco control directorate has been markedly downsized.
• Ottawa has spent hundreds of millions on tobacco-crop buyouts, an approach deemed counterproductive as tobacco production has actually increased.
•  The federal government has settled lawsuits with tobacco companies for paltry amounts, and no criminal charges have been laid.
• There is a burdensome bureaucracy that makes it difficult for non-profit groups working in tobacco control to get funding. In fact, many anti-tobacco initiatives have ground to a halt because groups have lost their funding – at least temporarily – with the expiry of the strategy.

The Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac (CQCT) did some home testing and found that 48,7% of the cigarillos tested were under 1.4 grams. There's been a solution offered by NDP MP Megan Leslie in the 40th Parliament to ban flavoured tobacco.

It's only fitting that the Minister of Health would focus on adding restrictions to medical marijuana but doesn't move on cigarettes that target teens. Any actions against tobacco companies comes from municipal and provincial governments while the Harper Government looks to lock up every pot head in the country.

They do know that tobacco is worse than marijuana, right?

Of course, expecting their ideology to change according to the facts is apparently asking too much.

Our Foreign Affairs Minister Doesn't Keep Up With World Events

Recently, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said: "Canada is emerging as a destination of choice for Chinese investment and Chinese investors and we welcome that". He didn't go into specifics beyond that and on its own merit, that's not a news story. The only thing that first jumped out at you is "Isn't Ed Fast the Minister for International Trade?" But with such a big cabinet, who can keep track? It was a signal that Canada was open to additional Chinese investment. What's wrong with that?

Nothing.  Nothing at all. But give it just a bit of time, will you?

Traffic cops equipped with their own binoculars.

Concern about China has been growing as of late. This started when economist Nouriel Roubini issued warnings about the health of the Chinese economy in April. It's important to note that if we look at the aggregate of predictions made by economists, those that are unfulfilled outnumber those that become fully realized. A study looked at the “consensus forecasts” and determined that 97% of economists' predictions were unable to forecast correctly any country's incoming crisis a year in advance.

Roubini is part of the 3%.

He foresaw the US sub-prime mortgage crisis coming a mile away and warned other economists, investors and the IMF on September 7th, 2006. A year later, investment banks started collapsing.

So when he wrote an op-ed about that the Chinese economy was headed in the wrong direction back in the middle of last April, people took notice this time.

Roubini, known as Doctor Doom, pointed to the “sleek but empty airports and bullet trains (which will reduce the need for the 45 planned airports), highways to nowhere, thousands of colossal new central and provincial government buildings, ghost towns, and brand-new aluminum smelters kept closed to prevent global prices from plunging.” Besides the eye test, he notes that the "problem, of course, is that no country can be productive enough to reinvest 50% of GDP in new capital stock without eventually facing immense overcapacity and a staggering non-performing loan problem". He predicts that this overcapacity will lead to a slow down in their economy around 2014.

But that's really far away right?

More recently, short-seller Carson Block of the firm Muddy Waters issued a report in early June. He claimed that the forestry “Canadian company” Sino-Forest – based in Hong Kong and Mississauga but operating in China's Yunnan province – was falsifying the amount of timber it claimed it could produce. Think "Bre-X". Sino-Forest went from around $19 to currently trading at $2.67 on the TSX. This is making investors skittish of Chinese companies. It's possible that Muddy Waters is wrong as they were about another company they shorted: Orient Paper Co. Still, some independent investigation by the Globe and Mail revealed that Carson Block was likely on the money. Other Chinese companies are being researched by Muddy Waters.

It's not that foreign direct investment (FDI) isn't welcomed but it should be scrutinized a little more. It's worth remembering that the Canadian government was hacked by a "foreign power". And make no mistake about it, the computers who performed the cyber-attack originated from China. Their targets were the Finance Department, the Treasury Board and Defence Research and Development Canada.

No one has been held accountable and, in fact, denies hacking the Canadian government.

John Baird should brush up on his international relations handbook on Israel and Palestine and not try to run the government all by himself. Coincidentally, Minister of International Trade Ed Fast was appropriately enough in Brazil and Paraguay working on promoting Canada's commercial relationship with MERCOSUR countries. With emerging markets in South America gaining greater prominence in the world economy, Canada would do well to look to increase trade with countries that share a similar ideological outlook than with China.

Someone should send John Baird that memo... or is he in charge of writing all of those too?

American-Flavored Crazy: Rick Perry

Rick Perry, the Texas Governor, is having a party. And you're invited!

Rick Perry: Negotiating a bill
with the Opposition party?

Well... maybe you are. Not sure. It's a prayer party but that's fine, right? You can get your prayer-on in Houston! The Response - that's what they're calling it - is a "non-denominational, apolitical Christian prayer meeting and has adopted the American Family Association statement of faith."

Nothing wrong with getting together with a variety of folks in prayer! It's just a solemn, sober reflection about your life, your spirituality and wait... IT'S IN A FOOTBALL STADIUM?!

That's fine... that's fine. It's an adjustment, for sure, but I expect it'll all be a lot of fun. So is this going to be a mega-party with Christian Rock and appearances from celebrities such as Kirk Cameron?

Apparently, it'll be a a "solemn gathering of prayer and fasting". What?! FASTING?! That's going to be rough! Doors open at 8am and the prayer meeting ends at 5pm. That's a 9-hour prayer meeting!

Maybe I'm being too negative. I am, I truly am. I need to look at the bright side. What's wrong going through a few hardships in order to get together with fellow Christians and celebrate our faith? Let's see who Rick Perry is organizing this with:

The American Family Association.

Now let's take a look at their background, shall we? Their spokesman Bryan Fischer has written that homosexuals were responsible for the holocaust. I guess homosexual Christians aren't invited....

He's also said that welfare just gives money to "people who rut like rabbits". The theme of his blog post was African-American social issues. But hey, later in his blog, he changed the sentence to denigrate all single mothers irrespective of race. Still, I don't expect to see many African-Americans at The Response...

Another organizer, the International House of Prayer - the other IHOP it seems - had a columnist suggest that universities with LGBT anti-discrimination measures are teaching students to “accept the mark of the beast”. Tolerant Christians are crossed off the invitation list...

John Hagee is going to be there and he's been quoted to have said that God sent Hitler to be a hunter of Jews. He's also said that antisemitism is the fault of the Jews themselves. If you're Jewish and working at Reliant Stadium in Houston, beware the gathering of people inside...

Okay, so the guest list isn't impressive. I'll admit that. But it's possible that they'll avoid all the controversial topics and focus on spirituality and compassion. It is possible, right?

It's odd though, I have a strange sense that this isn't the first large religious gathering at a sports stadium...

Oh yeah! The Moonies cult and their mega-marriage ceremonies! Each newlywed couple looks so.... unfamiliar with one another.

Maybe The Response will act as the Anti-Vegas? You go to pray with friends and next thing you know, you're caught up in it all and are given the gift of the Spirit and start speaking in tongues, next thing you know, POW, you're married to a complete stranger! But unlike Vegas: there's no quickie divorce!

I'm letting my imagination get the better of me! None of that will happen. Still, you can't fault someone for wanting to gather... evangelical, right-wing Christians together.

I'm sure he's just misunderstood and a real nice guy. I can imagine that Cameron Todd Willingham feels that way. After all, when Willingham was found guilty of killing his children by arson, it must have taken a lot of courage as governor to focus dispassionately at the scientific evidence that overwhelmingly indicated there were no signs of arson and grant him another trial. Oh wait. He didn't do that. He fired three members of the commission that were investigating the case, then installed a political ally, prosecutor John Bradley, as the new chairman. He then let Willingham get executed.

Hey, it was an election year.

So with a scary record, a spooky set of friends and beliefs... what's next for Rick Perry?

He's thinking of running for President of the USA.

God, save us all from Rick Perry.

In times like these, I need a Christian Side Hug.