But I promise this is the last time I'll write about Chalk River and/or Afghan detainees. Maybe.
You recall that allegations of abuse of prisoners and detainees in Afghanistan surfaced about a year ago. These detainees were captured by NATO forces and transferred into the custody of the new, Taliban-free Afghan army. Canadian forces weren't alleged to be abusing detainees (unlike the situation in Abu Ghraib)--it was the local army that was accused of abuse and torture.
The allegations were apparently confirmed in May. At some time in the fall, the Canadian military started processing detainees in a different way to prevent such abuses and torture.
The subject of torture and a new process for handling detainees came up in early January. At that time, the Prime Minister's office, through its communications director Sandra Buckler, said that the military had not informed the Prime Minister's office or the Minister of Defence of any change in the handling of detainees.
Liberal (and opposition) leader Stephane Dion immediately announced that he had been briefed about the new policy by the military in December. Although he had wanted to make that information public at that time--because the topic of abuse and torture of detainees had been discussed, if briefly, in the public realm and Canadian citizens might want to know--he had agreed to keep the information private. Dion spoke up when he did because he knew that the Prime Minister's office was lying about what it knew, let alone when it knew it.
The military considers its process for handling detainees to be an operational matter, and they say that discussing it publicly to confirm details of the process could jeopardize the lives of military personnel. Presumably, discussing operational details also jeopardizes the lives of the detainees, though those are of course "less important" than the lives of "our own," but I went over all that on Monday.
I think that the Canadian public might be happy to hear that the Canadian military is doing the right thing by working on this process to ensure that it meets international standards. The allegations were public and were confirmed publicly. Acknowledging that you're addressing problems, even though you've vehemently denied these allegations in the past, shows responsible behavio(u)r. It might even reassure those who are basically against the war in Afghanistan that at least Canada and her soldiers are conducting themselves in a way that the Canadian public can be proud of.
But that's a side issue. The main issue is that the communications director created a lie in a situation that didn't require it. She could simply have said that the Prime Minister and other ministers don't discuss operational details. It would have been frustrating to the press and to the public, but it would have kept the discussion on the right topic: what the Canadian military is doing about detainees in Afghanistan.
Instead, her lie forces people to wonder whether the military is conducting a rogue operation in Afghanistan without at least informing proper officials about what's happening. Which is apparently not the case.
Sandra Buckler said on Monday that she "misspoke." That's not true. She didn't make a mistake; this was no slip of the tongue. She deliberately created a lie that made the situation worse than before. I'd fire her in a heartbeat, but she need not worry. The hero of the previous blog post, Peter Van Horn, said Monday that she shouldn't fear for her job. According to him, if every person who misspoke got fired, there'd be nobody left in Parliament.
The thing is, Linda Keen got fired, and she didn't even have to "misspeak" to do so. She also didn't lie. She was simply doing her job. She made a decision to protect the safety of the Canadian public. Her decision irritated the Prime Minister, a fact that she properly ignored when reaching her decision.
Parliament overrode her decision--which, by the way, is what is supposed to happen; people elect government officials to make difficult tradeoffs like the one the MPs made when they granted a 120-day licence to the Chalk River plant to get it back online producing medical isotopes. Nevertheless, in spite of the system working exactly as it was supposed to work, Linda Keen got the axe--for doing exactly what she was hired to do. Wha?
Of course, apparently Sandra Buckler also did exactly what she was hired to do--obfuscate in an effort to somehow "protect" the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, her lie made the Prime Minister seem AT BEST out of touch with the military operations in Afghanistan. It actually shows that the Prime Minister is so paranoid about the Canadian public's ability to handle mixed news that he and his minions can no longer judge when telling the truth is in their best interests.
It's been said that you can't go broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public. You'd think that Canadian politicians trust the intelligence of their own citizens more than that. But this Conservative government apparently doesn't.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Keen. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Keen. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
The Long Reach of Retribution
Recently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, through his Natural Resources Minister, pulled off some cloak-and-dagger shenanigans that are very troubling.
It's a bit of a complicated story, but it's important to understand.
In late November, Canada's nuclear plant at Chalk River had a scheduled routine shutdown for maintenance. The shutdown was extended because of safety concerns at the plant. The decision to extend the shutdown was made by the Nuclear Safety Commission. This Commission is a government entity that ensures the safety of the nation's nuclear operations. It operates at arm's length from the day-to-day shifting political windbags. Er, winds.
The shutdown was expensive and embarrassing for some Canadians, because Chalk River is the world's largest supplier of isotopes used in nuclear medicine. Without those isotopes, many diagnostic procedures can't be performed. Canada sold those isotopes around the world, and the lack of available isotopes (which can't be stockpiled; they have a limited shelf life) could have seriously affected global public health.
As would an unsafe nuclear reactor, with extensive and known safety problems that required a better fix than engineers could make from chewing gum and tinfoil. But that's another story, and apparently less important to the health and safety of Canadians, because in December, Parliament forced the Chalk River plant to reopen.
Basically, the Canadian government overruled its own scientific and technical expertise. Unanimously, too--the opposition parties voted right along with the party in power to do this.
Curious. Why even have scientists--experts--responsible for public safety if you're going to ignore them? Has Canada been paying attention to its neighbour to the south, whose leading scientists have been leaving important regulatory agencies--such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (responsible for the debacle in the aftermath of Katrina)--in droves?
Here's some more background. The Chalk River facility is operated by a Crown Corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. A Crown Corporation is one of those public-yet-not-public entities that is operated like a business and is open to external investment yet also has some funding and oversight by the Canadian government. Canada Post, another federal Crown Corporation, is simply a federal delivery service. In mid-December, the head of Atomic Energy of Canada resigned (appropriately) as a result of criticism of his management of the Chalk River facility.
And now, back to the cloak-and-dagger shenanigans. The Nuclear Safety Commission is responsible for the safe operation of Canada's nuclear facilities. The President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission during this time, and thus one of the people responsible for extending the Chalk River shutdown in November, was named Linda Keen.
I say "was" not because she changed her name, but because she is no longer President of the Nuclear Safety Commission. She was fired by the Natural Resources Minister in a 10 p.m. phone call the night before she was scheduled to testify before a committee of the House of Commons. Because she was fired, she didn't appear the next day, although the press release announcing her firing indicates she at first intended to.
So much for operating at "arm's length." That's a mighty long reach.
Although the Harper government alleges she was "incompetent," and therefore should be fired, they allowed her to stay on the Board. Huh? AND, although they say that she, as President of the Nuclear Safety Commission, was responsible for ensuring the long-term safe supply of isotopes, the government is only now amending the language about the Nuclear Safety Commission to make it clear that they consider that entity to be responsible. I guess she was just supposed to divine her responsibilities somehow. Curiouser and curiouser.
Not only that, but the Nuclear Safety Commission doesn't have money. They can't give Atomic Energy of Canada any cash to fix the safety problems at Chalk River. The government in power--which currently has enough money to cut the federal sales tax and give out tax freebies like candies--is responsible for allocating those funds. Safety problems don't crop up overnight. Where has the attention of this government--and the previous Liberal government--been while equipment has been failing?
Although it's true that I'm a bit of an idealist, I long ago gave up the illusion that the scientists and engineers in public policy positions don't have to "be political." In fact, scientists and engineers in public policy positions are supposed to "be political," and it's the area of their job that they fail at, resoundingly and spectacularly.
Scientists and engineers in public policy circles may have PhDs and know a lot, but as a group, they stink at showing lawmakers the inevitability of scientific fact and the limitations of technology--nuclear facilities deteriorate, safety is always an issue, and you can't just ignore it and hope it goes away.
Of course, politicians must also be intelligent enough to understand that science does have absolute laws and that technology really does have those limits mentioned above--for example, nuclear facilities deteriorate. However, it seems to be the trend in politics today to consider science to be made up of "theories," and therefore no more valid than other "theories," or wishes, or hopes and dreams, like maybe if we ignore safety problems at a nuclear reactor, they'll go away. Technically, I suppose safety problems could simply disappear--but Chernobyl-like, in a mushroom cloud, along with many of the rest of us.
And if Stephen Harper or one of his minions wants to call Linda Keen in the middle of the night to debate evolution vs. creationism, more power to him. I'd advise her to get caller I.D. and let the machine pick up, but whatever.
But please, politicians, stop the shenanigans, hang up your cloaks, and put away your daggers. Listen to your scientists, our scientists, even when you don't like what they have to say. Our lives, and those of our children, depend on it.
It's a bit of a complicated story, but it's important to understand.
In late November, Canada's nuclear plant at Chalk River had a scheduled routine shutdown for maintenance. The shutdown was extended because of safety concerns at the plant. The decision to extend the shutdown was made by the Nuclear Safety Commission. This Commission is a government entity that ensures the safety of the nation's nuclear operations. It operates at arm's length from the day-to-day shifting political windbags. Er, winds.
The shutdown was expensive and embarrassing for some Canadians, because Chalk River is the world's largest supplier of isotopes used in nuclear medicine. Without those isotopes, many diagnostic procedures can't be performed. Canada sold those isotopes around the world, and the lack of available isotopes (which can't be stockpiled; they have a limited shelf life) could have seriously affected global public health.
As would an unsafe nuclear reactor, with extensive and known safety problems that required a better fix than engineers could make from chewing gum and tinfoil. But that's another story, and apparently less important to the health and safety of Canadians, because in December, Parliament forced the Chalk River plant to reopen.
Basically, the Canadian government overruled its own scientific and technical expertise. Unanimously, too--the opposition parties voted right along with the party in power to do this.
Curious. Why even have scientists--experts--responsible for public safety if you're going to ignore them? Has Canada been paying attention to its neighbour to the south, whose leading scientists have been leaving important regulatory agencies--such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (responsible for the debacle in the aftermath of Katrina)--in droves?
Here's some more background. The Chalk River facility is operated by a Crown Corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. A Crown Corporation is one of those public-yet-not-public entities that is operated like a business and is open to external investment yet also has some funding and oversight by the Canadian government. Canada Post, another federal Crown Corporation, is simply a federal delivery service. In mid-December, the head of Atomic Energy of Canada resigned (appropriately) as a result of criticism of his management of the Chalk River facility.
And now, back to the cloak-and-dagger shenanigans. The Nuclear Safety Commission is responsible for the safe operation of Canada's nuclear facilities. The President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission during this time, and thus one of the people responsible for extending the Chalk River shutdown in November, was named Linda Keen.
I say "was" not because she changed her name, but because she is no longer President of the Nuclear Safety Commission. She was fired by the Natural Resources Minister in a 10 p.m. phone call the night before she was scheduled to testify before a committee of the House of Commons. Because she was fired, she didn't appear the next day, although the press release announcing her firing indicates she at first intended to.
So much for operating at "arm's length." That's a mighty long reach.
Although the Harper government alleges she was "incompetent," and therefore should be fired, they allowed her to stay on the Board. Huh? AND, although they say that she, as President of the Nuclear Safety Commission, was responsible for ensuring the long-term safe supply of isotopes, the government is only now amending the language about the Nuclear Safety Commission to make it clear that they consider that entity to be responsible. I guess she was just supposed to divine her responsibilities somehow. Curiouser and curiouser.
Not only that, but the Nuclear Safety Commission doesn't have money. They can't give Atomic Energy of Canada any cash to fix the safety problems at Chalk River. The government in power--which currently has enough money to cut the federal sales tax and give out tax freebies like candies--is responsible for allocating those funds. Safety problems don't crop up overnight. Where has the attention of this government--and the previous Liberal government--been while equipment has been failing?
Although it's true that I'm a bit of an idealist, I long ago gave up the illusion that the scientists and engineers in public policy positions don't have to "be political." In fact, scientists and engineers in public policy positions are supposed to "be political," and it's the area of their job that they fail at, resoundingly and spectacularly.
Scientists and engineers in public policy circles may have PhDs and know a lot, but as a group, they stink at showing lawmakers the inevitability of scientific fact and the limitations of technology--nuclear facilities deteriorate, safety is always an issue, and you can't just ignore it and hope it goes away.
Of course, politicians must also be intelligent enough to understand that science does have absolute laws and that technology really does have those limits mentioned above--for example, nuclear facilities deteriorate. However, it seems to be the trend in politics today to consider science to be made up of "theories," and therefore no more valid than other "theories," or wishes, or hopes and dreams, like maybe if we ignore safety problems at a nuclear reactor, they'll go away. Technically, I suppose safety problems could simply disappear--but Chernobyl-like, in a mushroom cloud, along with many of the rest of us.
And if Stephen Harper or one of his minions wants to call Linda Keen in the middle of the night to debate evolution vs. creationism, more power to him. I'd advise her to get caller I.D. and let the machine pick up, but whatever.
But please, politicians, stop the shenanigans, hang up your cloaks, and put away your daggers. Listen to your scientists, our scientists, even when you don't like what they have to say. Our lives, and those of our children, depend on it.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Snake Bites Own Tail
Every so often, politicians try to understand why more people don't want to be just like them.
You can stop laughing now. Seriously. They do. In fact, in Canada, the very little-l liberal NDP wants House meetings, particularly Question Period, to be much more civilized so that more women will feel safe enough to become politicians. I hate what that implies; it's so pre-1970s. Men aren't beasts. It's not the job of the female gender to "tame" or "civilize" men. Sheesh. But it says something that the party has that mission as an ongoing part of their platform.
However. I'm still a little stunned over something I saw on TV last week. It's about Afghanistan detainees, although (you're relieved, I'm sure) the details aren't important. In any case, the Liberal party had asked a question relating to Afghan detainees. And then the man I love to dislike, Peter Van Loan, showed why he is so eminently unlikeable. In fact, as my family would say, he's...he's...hate-able.
In his response to the question about detainees, he said that the Member of Parliament who asked the question, who is a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition*, was an operative for the Taliban.
Yes. The MP is accused of treason simply for asking a legitimate question. Terrorism, indeed. Other members of Van Loan's party laughed and cheered. My stomach churned.
Michael Ignatieff, Deputy Leader of the Liberals, later pointed out to the media that that statement wasn't an auspicious beginning to the negotiations about the future role of Canada in Afghanistan, which the Conservatives claim to want.
Naturally, CBC showed the remark, and the laughter, and the response. Fortunately, they showed it as evidence of the truth of Ignatieff's statement--that partisan spirit in the House is as nasty as ever. (Who needs the scathing, loathing diatribes like those of the Fox pundits when you have Peter Van Loan?)
We all know plenty of people who are disagreeable. Most people know a person or two who is downright hateful. Sometimes, disagreeable or hateful people think they're being funny; sometimes, they're normal people having a bad day. Generally, they're not rewarded for being hateful--they lose friends, loved ones give them a wide berth, they drown in their own unhappy isolation. Whatever. They pay a price.
But what continues to bug me about this guy in this situation is that nobody says "the guy was out of line." They say "the guy is making his life more difficult." But apparently this kind of (pick one) (a) grandstanding, (b) slander, (c) name-calling, (d) playground hijinks, (e) all of the above (the mind boggles) is business as usual.
Well, hell. No wonder few people of intelligence go into politics. No wonder politicians' statements about "bringing more civility into politics" ring so hollow. They obviously love this stuff. Politicians in Canada, perhaps like some of those in the U.S., are ten-year-olds on a Lord-of-the-Flies playground. The gang with the biggest bullies wins. No wonder people consider them to be scum. Untrustworthy. Unreliable.
So, let the Young Sharks and the Miniature Jets of the North Side Story fight it out (stay cool, boy). Meanwhile, long live the bureaucrat. Long live the person who works, day in and day out, to serve her country regardless of which political party is in power.
Unless you're Linda Keen, of course. Sometimes bullies have a very long reach.
_________
*By the way, isn't that an excellent way to refer to the party out of power?! Just because they didn't win enough votes to form the government doesn't mean they are worthless--they have an important role to play. They're patriots, still loyal to Queen and country. I just love that.
You can stop laughing now. Seriously. They do. In fact, in Canada, the very little-l liberal NDP wants House meetings, particularly Question Period, to be much more civilized so that more women will feel safe enough to become politicians. I hate what that implies; it's so pre-1970s. Men aren't beasts. It's not the job of the female gender to "tame" or "civilize" men. Sheesh. But it says something that the party has that mission as an ongoing part of their platform.
However. I'm still a little stunned over something I saw on TV last week. It's about Afghanistan detainees, although (you're relieved, I'm sure) the details aren't important. In any case, the Liberal party had asked a question relating to Afghan detainees. And then the man I love to dislike, Peter Van Loan, showed why he is so eminently unlikeable. In fact, as my family would say, he's...he's...hate-able.
In his response to the question about detainees, he said that the Member of Parliament who asked the question, who is a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition*, was an operative for the Taliban.
Yes. The MP is accused of treason simply for asking a legitimate question. Terrorism, indeed. Other members of Van Loan's party laughed and cheered. My stomach churned.
Michael Ignatieff, Deputy Leader of the Liberals, later pointed out to the media that that statement wasn't an auspicious beginning to the negotiations about the future role of Canada in Afghanistan, which the Conservatives claim to want.
Naturally, CBC showed the remark, and the laughter, and the response. Fortunately, they showed it as evidence of the truth of Ignatieff's statement--that partisan spirit in the House is as nasty as ever. (Who needs the scathing, loathing diatribes like those of the Fox pundits when you have Peter Van Loan?)
We all know plenty of people who are disagreeable. Most people know a person or two who is downright hateful. Sometimes, disagreeable or hateful people think they're being funny; sometimes, they're normal people having a bad day. Generally, they're not rewarded for being hateful--they lose friends, loved ones give them a wide berth, they drown in their own unhappy isolation. Whatever. They pay a price.
But what continues to bug me about this guy in this situation is that nobody says "the guy was out of line." They say "the guy is making his life more difficult." But apparently this kind of (pick one) (a) grandstanding, (b) slander, (c) name-calling, (d) playground hijinks, (e) all of the above (the mind boggles) is business as usual.
Well, hell. No wonder few people of intelligence go into politics. No wonder politicians' statements about "bringing more civility into politics" ring so hollow. They obviously love this stuff. Politicians in Canada, perhaps like some of those in the U.S., are ten-year-olds on a Lord-of-the-Flies playground. The gang with the biggest bullies wins. No wonder people consider them to be scum. Untrustworthy. Unreliable.
So, let the Young Sharks and the Miniature Jets of the North Side Story fight it out (stay cool, boy). Meanwhile, long live the bureaucrat. Long live the person who works, day in and day out, to serve her country regardless of which political party is in power.
Unless you're Linda Keen, of course. Sometimes bullies have a very long reach.
_________
*By the way, isn't that an excellent way to refer to the party out of power?! Just because they didn't win enough votes to form the government doesn't mean they are worthless--they have an important role to play. They're patriots, still loyal to Queen and country. I just love that.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Who, Indeed?
Did you hear the one about how The Government can track your location based on the currency you carry?
I did, and I live in the very last house on Paranoia Lane so everyone else must have heard it by this time. There are strips in $20 bills that tell the government where you are at any given time. It's true. It was on The X Files. Seriously. (Or maybe not so seriously. It was on The X Files, though.)
Here's a new twist. Now, FOREIGN Governments can track your location through radio frequency transmitters embedded in their money. If you happen to be carrying one of these poppy quarters, that is.
The quarters were issued to commemorate Canada's war dead. Apparently the coating over the red poppy was designed to protect the poppy from rubbing off as the coins circulated. Or to hide a radio transmitter, according to widespread rumors in 2006. Depending on your level of paranoia.
Here's the AP story. Note this part:
"Who knows"? Seriously, that's the response? In 2006, five years after 9/11 and amid the ongoing mistaken belief that the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada, U.S. officials at the Pentagon still didn't have a sense of Canadian security?
I'm not necessarily saying that Canada is as serious about border security as the U.S. I have no idea -- but then again, I don't work for the Pentagon (as far as you know). Surely U.S. security officials, whose job it is to protect U.S. borders, have some idea of the policies and attitudes in Canada, the country that shares the much-touted longest undefended border.
You'd think, anyway. I know I'd expect that.
But then again, who knows?
P.S. Can I also mention that perhaps the U.S. does NOT grossly underestimate Canadian intelligence forces? It's entirely possible for Canadians to be as bad as the next bad guys (in an extremely polite way, of course). Perhaps Canada designed this tracking system to see which Americans actually hang onto their Canadian currency after it's slipped to them accidentally in casinos.
No doubt CSIS worked with the keen minds in charge of security at the Royal Canadian Mint, which last summer lost $15.3 million in gold. That's actual gold, not $15.3 million in value. The stuff they show in blocks in the movies. The real thing. And thank goodness that they're pursuing this investigation "rather vigorously," according to the story.
Finally, stories like this one remind Canadians that the U.S. really doesn't understand that it is NOT the centre of the universe. Or center, either.
I did, and I live in the very last house on Paranoia Lane so everyone else must have heard it by this time. There are strips in $20 bills that tell the government where you are at any given time. It's true. It was on The X Files. Seriously. (Or maybe not so seriously. It was on The X Files, though.)
Here's a new twist. Now, FOREIGN Governments can track your location through radio frequency transmitters embedded in their money. If you happen to be carrying one of these poppy quarters, that is.
The quarters were issued to commemorate Canada's war dead. Apparently the coating over the red poppy was designed to protect the poppy from rubbing off as the coins circulated. Or to hide a radio transmitter, according to widespread rumors in 2006. Depending on your level of paranoia.
Here's the AP story. Note this part:
"I don't think it is an issue of the Canadians being the bad guys," the Pentagon's counterintelligence chief wrote, "but then again, who knows."
"Who knows"? Seriously, that's the response? In 2006, five years after 9/11 and amid the ongoing mistaken belief that the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. through Canada, U.S. officials at the Pentagon still didn't have a sense of Canadian security?
I'm not necessarily saying that Canada is as serious about border security as the U.S. I have no idea -- but then again, I don't work for the Pentagon (as far as you know). Surely U.S. security officials, whose job it is to protect U.S. borders, have some idea of the policies and attitudes in Canada, the country that shares the much-touted longest undefended border.
You'd think, anyway. I know I'd expect that.
But then again, who knows?
P.S. Can I also mention that perhaps the U.S. does NOT grossly underestimate Canadian intelligence forces? It's entirely possible for Canadians to be as bad as the next bad guys (in an extremely polite way, of course). Perhaps Canada designed this tracking system to see which Americans actually hang onto their Canadian currency after it's slipped to them accidentally in casinos.
No doubt CSIS worked with the keen minds in charge of security at the Royal Canadian Mint, which last summer lost $15.3 million in gold. That's actual gold, not $15.3 million in value. The stuff they show in blocks in the movies. The real thing. And thank goodness that they're pursuing this investigation "rather vigorously," according to the story.
Finally, stories like this one remind Canadians that the U.S. really doesn't understand that it is NOT the centre of the universe. Or center, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
