Sandra Finley

2014-06-23 Democracy in action, Principle Free Speech. Salman Rushdie. Ashu’s behavior a breach.

 X1B Postings  No Responses »
Jun 232014
 

From: Larry Waldinger [mailto:lwaldinger@gmail.com] Sent: June 23, 2014 2:53 PM To: Sandra Finley <sabest1@sasktel.net> Subject: Re: Revised Permanent Peace Agreement Ashu Solo

Sandra:

I was not going to respond, but your words: “REQUIRED:  an undertaking by Ashu to conduct himself appropriately vis-a-vis other people.” seem to suggest that you are still open to a possible understanding if Ashu can “conduct himself appropriately”. I have to go to work soon so I will forward an undertaking from Ashu before I go. I apologize if I misunderstood.

Larry

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Sandra Finley  wrote:

It is not a peace agreement between me and Ashu.

I do not need any kind of agreement with him.  I simply do not engage with people who are disrespectful, who lie, who attempt to intimidate and coerce other people.

The point seems to have been missed:  what I do, I do not do on my own behalf.  I have the wherewithal to neutralize the effects of Ashu Solo in my life.   SOME OTHER PEOPLE DO NOT.

REQUIRED:  an undertaking by Ashu to conduct himself appropriately vis-a-vis other people.

Perhaps this will make clear the PRINCIPLE at play here:

In democracy, there is no fear in speaking or publishing truthful and respectful thoughts.

I, nor anyone else, should be intimidated by how Ashu might react.   He robs me of the freedom accorded citizens in a democracy if I succumb out of fear of what he might do.

It is the responsibility of citizens in a democracy to understand and to defend the principles of democracy in action.   Many people before us have fought hard and died, to establish the principles.

I am reminded of the (secular Muslim – – like Ashu – –  and author) Salman Rushdie’s nine years under Islamist fatwa (a call to murder Rushdie by the Ayatollah, because of a novel he wrote).   Rushdie (and a very small, international group of authors, journalists and book publishers)  refused to have their freedom taken by religious and political leaders.

Atheism (Ashu) is one among many religious beliefs (religion is no more than man’s interpretation of the life energy).     In Ashu’s case,  as in the case of the particular Ayotollahs,  the religious belief is not a justification for behaviour that is outside the law, or that attempts to limit the freedom of others.

The actions of Rushdie and his supporters arose out of one small principle, that of defending freedom of the individual.   The freedom to say, write and publish, even that which might be critical of the religion and its leaders.  (Of course, there are responsibilities and limits to the freedom.)  The threat to Rushdie’s life (and family) from Islamist zealots was real, and only because the Islamists did not like legitimate criticism.

It seems so obvious and fundamental that the principle must be defended if we wish to preserve it.  In the practical world it is often easier and more comfortable to try and ignore those who would bully others into submission.

The difficulties with Ashu began over his bullying and intimidation of a young woman who disagreed with some of his statements.   He used Green Party social media in his attacks.    When I forwarded the complaint about him, he turned and directed his tactics against me.   It is the Rushdie story carried out, but in miniature.  Ashu will likely appreciate the irony.

Sandra

From: Larry Waldinger  Sent: June-23-14 8:23 AM To: Sandra Finley Subject: Fwd: Revised Permanent Peace Agreement

Sandra:

I will suggest to you from ME as a friend that it is probably a good idea to cool off and conclude this revised agreement and get things tucked away for good.

As you can see below Ashu has already revised the agreement to take out whatever he thinks was objectionable to you.

I apologize if I have overstepped, and I am confident that this will be the last you hear of it from me.

Larry

———- Forwarded message ———- From: Ashu M. G. Solo <amgsolo@mavericktechnologies.us> Date: Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 8:59 AM Subject: Revised Permanent Peace Agreement To: Larry Waldinger

Larry, you can give Sandra Finley this entire email.

To have a permanent peace in all ways between Sandra Finley and I, Sandra Finley and I should agree to the following permanent peace agreement, which shall remain confidential forever and guarantee peace between us forever:

PERMANENT PEACE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ASHU SOLO AND SANDRA FINLEY

Ashu Solo agrees to the following:

  1. He will cease emailing members of the Green Party of Canada about Sandra Finley.
  2. He will cease emailing members of the Green Party of Saskatchewan about Sandra Finley. 3. He will not email members of other Green Parties about Sandra Finley.
  3. He will cease phoning members of the Green Party of Canada about Sandra Finley.
  4. He will cease phoning members of the Green Party of Saskatchewan about Sandra Finley.
  5. He will not phone members of other Green Parties about Sandra Finley.
  6. He will not attend future meetings of the Saskatoon-Humboldt Federal Green Party Association.
  7. He will not attend future meetings of any electoral district association for the Green Party of Canada. 9. He will not seek to be a Green Party of Canada candidate for the House of Commons.
  8. He will not seek to be a Green Party of Saskatchewan candidate for the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly.
  9. He will not seek to be a candidate for any Green Party for any legislative body.
  10. He will not seek to be a candidate for any party for the House of Commons.
  11. He will not seek to be a candidate for any party for the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly.
  12. He will not seek to be a candidate for any party for any Canadian legislative body.
  13. He will not reactivate my membership in the Green Party of Canada.
  14. He will not make blogs about Sandra Finley.
  15. He will not make blog postings about Sandra Finley.
  16. He will not make Facebook postings about Sandra Finley.
  17. He will not make online postings about Sandra Finley.
  18. He will not provide material about Sandra Finley to Crocels News.
  19. He will not provide material about Sandra Finley to other media outlets.
  20. He will not communicate with members of Sandra Finley’s family.
  21. He will not communicate with relatives of Sandra Finley.
  22. He will not take my civil rights case about Christmas messages on buses to the Court of Queen’s Bench or any other court.
  23. He will drop the criminal harassment complaint filed last night against Sandra Finley.
  24. He will drop the criminal complaint for communicating false messages filed last night against Sandra Finley.
  25. He will not file further criminal complaints against Sandra Finley.
  26. He will drop his 10 ethics complaints made against Sandra Finley with the Green Party of Canada.
  27. He will drop his 10 ethics complaints made against Sandra Finley with the Green Party of Saskatchewan in case she attempts to rejoin.
  28. He will not file further ethics complaints against Sandra Finley with the Green Party of Canada.
  29. He will not file further ethics complaints against Sandra Finley with the Green Party of Saskatchewan in case she attempts to rejoin.
  30. He will keep the terms of this agreement confidential.

 

Sandra Finley agrees to the following:

 

  1. She will immediately delete all her references to who my family is, name changes, my family’s name, and my family’s address and contact information.  This includes deleting all such references from http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11617 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11500 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11496 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11707 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11759 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=12139 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11810 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11520 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11684 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11596 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11775 and http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=12743
  2. She will immediately password protect or delete all blog posts about me and not give people access to these blog posts in the future.  The blog posts about me have defamatory references to her, Daeran, Vicki, Penny, Lynn, Lois, Larry, Meena, the Green Party of Canada, Zimmerman, and others.
  3. She will not defame me in the future or talk about my family in the future.
  4. She will keep the terms of this agreement confidential.

 

Instead of stipulations #1 and #2 for Sandra Finley above, she could just unpublish all of the blog posts about me so that they aren’t accessible to people by password or without password.  This would save her time.

I would be fully committed to keeping this permanent peace agreement and I hope Sandra Finley would be too.  We both have INFINITELY more productive and useful things to be doing.  We could be moving the world forward instead.

Ashu M. G. Solo

 

From: Larry Waldinger

Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:25 PM

To: Ashu M. G. Solo

Subject: Sandra

From Sandra:

Re Ashu:

–  he can email you with what he proposes his undertaking will be

–          You can forward his email to me.

–          If it satisfies, I will remove from  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=11496   all that refers to the co-authored paper with his father, that includes his father’s contact info.

Please be advised:

–          I am not willing to have more of my time taken up by Ashu

–          There will be no “Negotiations”.

2014-05-26 Census, Surveys & Lockheed Martin. More concise argument? (conversation with JoAnne)

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  11 Responses »
Jun 182014
 

—–Original Message—–

From: JoAnne Sent: May-22-14

Subject: Re: Mandatory Labour Force Survey

Hello Sandra,

I came across your contact information after doing much research on this Labour Force Survey which I have recently been contacted to do. I was furious to learn of the nature of personal information that I would be required to provide. I am inclined towards not doing it but have a letter from Stats Canada saying it is mandatory by law.

I read the Statistics Act and cannot see anywhere that states that it is mandatory. I have read numerous blogs, posts etc. and some people say it is mandatory , some say it isn’t. I’m certainly not prepared to go to jail over this but I am fired up about the invasion of my privacy from Stats Canada and this Survey.

Can you give me any firm answer on the legal/law that would require mandatory participation in this survey, Or perhaps guide me as to where I can get council on this matter?

Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank You in advance,

JoAnne

= = = = = = = = = = = =

On May 22, 2014, Sandra Finley wrote:

Hi JoAnne,

I believe the situation to be this:

  • StatsCan SAYS the Labour Force Survey is mandatory.
  • But nowhere does the actual legislation say that it is mandatory. You are right on this point.
  • It has never been challenged in the Courts, so there is no case law which interprets the Statistics Act on “surveys”.
  • Personally, I am of the view that the Courts would be very hard pressed to interpret the Stats Act to say that surveys are mandatory. I believe that the Act is specific. Surveys are voluntary.
  • StatsCan is supposed to be ruled by the Legislation. They cannot just decree that surveys are mandatory. The Law prevails.
  • As far as I know, NO ONE has ever been charged for failure to fill in a survey. I believe the reason for that is this: if StatsCan wants to charge someone, they have to refer the case to the Justice Dept. The Justice Dept prosecutors are the ones who would then issue the summons to court. But I doubt they would ever do that — because the Law says that surveys are voluntary.

I think your best bet, if StatsCan continues to demand that you fill out the survey is to tell them: I will fill out the survey AFTER you show me in the Statistics Act where it says that surveys are mandatory.  Tell them: you are governed by the Stats Act.

Good luck with it JoAnne!

/Sandra

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

From: JoAnne Sent: May-24-14  To: Sandra Finley

Subject: Re: Mandatory Labour Force Survey

Hello Sandra,

Thank You so much for your response and the good information and advice. I received a visit this morning from the Stats Canada Rep who has been trying to get me to fill out the Labour Force Survey. As per your advice I told her the reason I was declining was because I had read The Statistics Act which I am governed by and see no amendments on Mandatory Surveys.

She said that the letter they sent states that it does and of course I said again that I’m not governed by the letter I’m governed by the Act itself and that it didn’t. She said that the survey was mandatory according to section 8 in the Act and basically responded exactly as it is stated on their website which I posted below

  • Statistics Canada must collect and compile statistics on various subjects. These subjects are identified in Section 22 of the Act. The Labour Force Survey is authorized by paragraph 22 (h) – Labour and Employment.
  • Section 8 permits the minister responsible for Statistics Canada to order that participation in a survey be on a voluntary basis. No such order has been signed for the Labour Force Survey, therefore, participation is mandatory.
  • Section 31 sets out penalties for providing false answers or for refusing to participate in a mandatory survey.

Is this just wording they are playing with or is there validity to this so called “order”?

She has told me that she is sending me a copy of the Statistic Act saying that there are 2 mandatory household surveys and the LFS was one of them. I said, send me a copy of the Act showing this amendment then. She said also the Stats Canada would be contacting me to inform me of the fact that it is the law and the penalties imposed if you decline to participate.

I do not intimidate easily, however I want to be sure I know what I’m talking about. Are you familiar with the “Order” that can mandate people to do the survey.

I thank You for you time and help. I am getting more and more annoyed with this Rep from Stats Can, as she has called my house repeatedly and knocked on my door twice in the span of a week and a half. I would like to put this to rest but feel I will have a fight on my hands. Any continued help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You once again,

JoAnne

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

On May 25, 2014,  “Sandra Finley” wrote:

Hi again JoAnne,

First your question, I want to be sure I know what I’m talking about. Are you familiar with the “Order” that can mandate people to do the survey.

Statscan is talking about an Order-in-Council. (Section 8 of the Statistics Act, titled “Voluntary Surveys” – The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining (of information) …)

Orders-in-council are an abbreviated way of getting things done. The Government doesn’t have to go through Parliament for EVERYthing. In some instances, the Cabinet can issue an “Order-in-Council” (in council with the Queen or the Queen’s Representative, the Gov-Gen, who has to sign the Order before it comes into effect).

From the internet:

Many orders in council are notices of appointments. Other “orders” are regulations or legislative orders in relation to and authorized by an existing act of parliament (like Section 8 of the Stats Act).

Federal Orders in council have to be announced in the Canada Gazette.

The Privy Council Office, which provides bureaucratic support to the Prime Minister and cabinet, maintains an online database of federal orders in council which can be used to search for orders in council issued since 1990.

 

From your notes, StatsCan says

  • Section 8 permits the minister responsible for Statistics Canada to order that participation in a survey be on a voluntary basis. No such order has been signed for the Labour Force Survey, therefore, participation is mandatory.

StatsCan has announced this. It is their interpretation.

It is a very contentious interpretation of Section 8. It has not been subject to interpretation by a Court of Law. AND it does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

THE SHORT OF IT:

StatsCan is saying that these words from the Statistics Act (Sec 8, Voluntary Surveys)

where such information is requested section 31 does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.

Mean

you have to fill in the survey and if you don’t you can be prosecuted, fined and sent to jail

(Section 31 is the sanctions, fine and jail, if you are guilty of non-compliance with a Census.)

That is a ludicrous interpretation of the words. It is simply not what they say.

Section 8 ( “Voluntary Surveys”) says: where “such information” – – i.e. a survey – – is requested THE SANCTIONS DO NOT APPLY.

If the sanctions do not apply, surveys are voluntary. Which is ALSO what the rest of the wording in Section 8 says.

StatsCan is out-to-lunch. Their interpretation is self-serving.

And dangerous when Lockheed Martin Corp (American surveillance) is involved. The data base on Canadians at StatsCan is growing rapidly. We have a Charter Right to Privacy of personal information. Anyone who believes that their personal information is secure in the StatsCan data base is extremely gullible (reference Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald disclosures regarding American surveillance and “back-door” access to data bases, plus the articulated statements that Americans (the NSA, FBI, DofD) want access to ALL the data on Canadians).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = =

Some further thoughts, which you probably don’t need:

StatsCan makes the point:

They have the authority. Agreed – – yes, the Act gives them authority. Section 22: the Chief Statistician shall, under the direction of the Minister, collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics in relation to (labour and employment) 

No problem there. But note that the granting of authority does not give them the right to override the Laws. They still have to do their work WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW.

Already discussed:

The title of Section 8 is “Voluntary Surveys”. And the details say quite the opposite of what StatsCan is saying.

Section 8 says two things:

  1. if a survey is to be mandatory, the Minister has to make it mandatory. (no order in council appears in the Canada Gazette to make the Labour Force Survey mandatory)
  2. even if it is “mandated”, quite specifically THE SANCTIONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE DO NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF SURVEYS: where such information is requested section 31 does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.

INSERT ADDITIONAL,  Feb 2016:  From posting   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=16207

RE:    former Chief Statistician agrees with the premise of your second reason (Charter Right to Privacy). He states that while the mandatory collection of personal information is in violation of the charter right, however it is a ‘legitimate violation of the right’ (the idea that rights may be rescinded for a social good) because it is a recognized necessity as outlined in the statistics act.

MY REPLY:

Yes, the Government may rescind the rights of an individual.  However,

  1. The Statistics Act does not give the Government the authority to do that.  StatsCan cannot just declare that this is so.
  2. In order to override the Charter Right of an individual, the Government has to pass the “Oakes Test“.

If StatsCan wishes to take away Canadians’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, it would have to make an application to the Court to do so, supplying the Court with the arguments to satisfy the Oakes Test.   It has not done that.   So the Charter Right stands.

REFERENCE:

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8 Privacy – Case Law: The Queen Vs Plant protects a “biographical core of personal information” from the state. Oakes Test to override.

= = = = = = = =

Some things that might be helpful to understanding,

I cannot imagine that the Justice Dept would ever agree to proceed with prosecutions under the Statistics Act over non-compliance with surveys. HOWEVER! Stranger things have happened.

If they ever decided to prosecute in relation to surveys, it would be the usual – – the justice system is not meant for ordinary citizens. It is almost impossible to win without legal counsel and that is expensive. It is also very difficult to find a lawyer who has specialized experience in this realm. A run-of-the-day lawyer would have a large amount of extra work in order for them to grasp the lay of the minefield on this issue. So, the Govt gets its way, in spite of what the Laws say.

JUST IN CASE INSANITY PREVAILS IN CANADA:

in my experience you really can jump off the StatsCan railroading at any time. They want you to comply with whatever it is that they want. I was repeatedly offered, first by StatsCan and then again, repeatedly by the Justice Dept – – fill in the form and they will go away. They want to keep dissent muffled. They are accustomed to people caving in to their coercion (it is understandable that people cave in).

I received the census long form which no longer exists. My reasons for not complying began because of the out-sourcing to Lockheed Martin Corp. But I have read enough about the rise to power of the Nazis to know that we are getting into dangerous territory with detailed files on citizens, Not to mention other worrisome things that are happening. We are getting further and further away from democracy.

It is a bit like a game of poker. You are calling their bluff. (Or not, if they decide that they are omnipotent and screw the law.)  I repeat that I do not know of anyone who has been charged because of non-compliance with a survey. Many, many have been threatened, the same as you are being threatened. But StatsCan has not followed through. I am sure that people I have shared information with, as I am doing with you now, would have gotten back to me if charges had been laid.

I would recommend that you try to step back regularly to assess where you’re at with them.

And note: if there is any chance that they will follow through on their threats, they will not choose to issue a summons to appear in court to YOU specifically, IF you have not given them hard evidence that they can use in Court.

The person they would use to testify against you would be the StatsCan worker. That worker will be keeping notes on what you say. And would use those notes in a Court hearing. But as I say, if you do not give them the words they would need, they won’t try to make a case against you. It is basically YOU who would have to incriminate yourself (except that you would not be incriminating yourself, because you have not broken the law).

You have told them that you read the Act and don’t see where surveys are mandatory. They have advised you that they will bring the information to you.

Once that is done, – – let’s say this is the Census now, which IS mandatory – – If you never say “I am not going to fill in the form”, they don’t have the “evidence” they would need to present to a judge.  If you say “Look I’m busy at the moment, leave it with me – – I need to read it and get my head around it” they don’t have anything useable in Court. If you know who’s at the door and don’t answer it, they have nothing to go on. And so on.

Also, they have not brought charges against anyone who has submitted a form (census), but filled it with minimal or nonsense answers. There are thousands of people who have done that.

Maybe I only make things LESS CLEAR by supplying these further details.

Personally, I think you can stand firm and nothing will happen. StatsCan’s position vis-a-vis Surveys  cannot be defended. They would, or should, be thrown out of any Court.

Best wishes JoAnne.

Please feel free to get back if you have further questions I might be able to answer.

Sandra

P.S. As you may know, George Orwell’s small book, “Animal Farm”, is an excellent illustration of how democracy fails. “Memory” of the way things are supposed to function is lost. The people who understood, who knew, were cynics. They had a responsibility to stand up, to speak up, but they did not. They were the only ones who COULD HAVE changed the course, the slide into fascism (government by corporate interests).

Citizens do have to engage in their democracy if it is going to survive. And they have to do it with intelligence. What you are doing is great! Educate the StatsCan worker. (I feel badly for them. They probably need the money, and I strongly suspect that they are on some sort of a quota and reward system – – not a salaried job.) /S

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

From: JoAnne  Sent: May-26-14 To: Sandra Finley Subject: Re: Mandatory Labour Force Survey

Sandra, thank you for ALL of the information you provided. I read it over several times and we actually had an in depth conversation about it over dinner last night with our guests. As I expected, you confirmed what I thought about Stats Can putting their own special twist on the interpretation of the Act. The information you provided me with has given me the confidence to stand my ground. I will take your advice and mind my P’s & Q’s so as not to incriminate myself even though what I really want to do is make a video montage of her visits to my home from our security cameras and post it on YouTube and see how she likes her privacy being invaded. That’s my anger speaking of course, and I will definitely be cautious how I proceed. If there should be anything that arises from her last visit ( which I am anticipating) I will let you know where things are at.

I thank you once again for your response and all of the very valuable information you provided. I so agree with your concerns on where democracy is heading in this country, in fact it’s more than a little scary.

Best,

JoAnne

= = = = = = = = = =

Sandra to JoAnne:

StatsCan keeps repeating the lies.

We have to keep repeating the truth of what the Law says. Keep the memory of our Rights alive.

The conversations with friends are EXTREMELY important.

 

 

 

 

 

2014-06-14 A Veteran’s Savage Indictment of the Iraq War. Dynamics of Change: “Angry Men”, Betrayal by leaders.

 Change, Leadership, Peace or Violence  No Responses »
Jun 142014
 

I find this interesting (as well as tragic), in the context of Change.  Change comes about through awareness – – seeing through things.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==

Email exchange,  My reply:

Yes – angry men.  They were betrayed by their leaders.

I wonder how and when this Veteran figured it out?

= = = = = = = = = = =  = = = = =

Ben writes:

​The language is terrible, but the thoughts are so plain and especially significant​

http://aattp.org/absolutely-nothing-a-veterans-savage-indictment-of-the-iraq-war/

 

Tragically, all we’ve fought for in Iraq, all that 4,500 American lives were shed to gain, is on the cusp, potentially, of vanishing.

– statement by Mitt Romney, “Ideas Summit,” 6/13/2014

All we fought for in Iraq.

All we fought for in Iraq is on the cusp of vanishing.

That’s what Mitt Romney says.

We fought for. We fought for. We.

Oh, so it’s we now, is it, Mitt?

I must have missed you over there, but it was a busy place. We. The guy who helped set up “pro-draft” rallies and yet somehow managed to avoid service in Vietnam is upset about losing what “we” fought for? We.

Yeah, fuck you, Mitt.

And you’re all welcome to quote me on that.

Somebody stepped into my office yesterday and asked how I felt about it.  He wanted to know how I felt about “losing” Iraq.

How do I feel about losing all we fought for?

I don’t know.

First, I’m going to need somebody to explain to me exactly what it was that we were fighting for.

What was it? What is it that we gained, according to Mitt Romney? And what is on the cusp of vanishing? What is that? No, really, somebody please explain it to me.

Because I’d love to know.

The Wikipedia says Operation Iraqi Freedom started on the 20th of March, 2003, which is just another reason why you shouldn’t believe anything you read in the Wikipedia (don’t, just don’t).  That’s not correct, the war began a day earlier.  See, I was there on the night the warreally started, at precisely 2200 hours, on the 19th of March in the Northern Arabian Gulf.  I was there when US Navy SEALs and Polish GROM stormed the MABOT and KAAOT oil terminals a full day before Saddam Hussein discovered that his time was finally up.  In point of fact, I had arrived there four months before, a few days before Christmas in December of 2002. From the day of my arrival (and before that really) to the day the war started, and for months after, I was a Navy intelligence officer working in support of the invasion force.  There’s not much I don’t know about the events leading up to war and the aftermath of the invasion.

Well, not much except for that one little detail.

All these years later, and I still don’t know why.

Oh, I mean, I know what they told us, sure, Saddam Hussein attacked America on 9-11.  Right? That’s what they said, that’s what the Commander-in-Chief told us. Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaida, remember? The son of a bitch and his stinking nation of terrorists attacked us. The Iraqis had it coming. And Georgie Boy was going to finish what his daddy started. Hooray! Right? That’s what they said.

Except those of us in the professional intelligence community looked at each other and thought, wait, what? How the hell did we miss that? Saddam and Osama bin Laden are working together? Buwah? But Rumsfeld, he had his own little extra-constitutional intelligence outfit staffed with his simpering cronies who he paid to blow smoke up his pinched grey ass until his colon resembled beef jerky and he sure didn’t have much use for us – after all, we were just the military he had.

Ours, as they say, is not to reason why, ours is to but do and die, right? At least that’s what Rummy told us and you know, you go into war with the Secretary of Defense you have, not the one you’d like to have. And if Rumsfeld says he’s got the real scoop, it must be true? Right? Sure, that justifies his contempt for us, sure it does.

Except, Rumsfeld’s little masturbation fantasy turned out not to be the case.

But hey, never mind that, Saddam Hussein was threatening us anyway, wasn’t he? Sure he was, in fact, that’s the first time you heard the phrase “Weapons of Mass Destruction” isn’t it? The bastard had nukes and germs and war gas and he was just itching to use them on America, wasn’t he?  Heck we even had pictures of “mobile weapons labs” to prove it, isn’t that what Colin Powell told the UN and the world? And by damn Saddam had been buying Yellow Cake uranium from Niger, right? Colin Powell wouldn’t lie to us, would he? He was a hero, a general, he wouldn’t send his comrades into war on a lie now would he?

Except all that turned out to be bullshit too, and Colin Powell was either a dupe of staggering proportions or he was the kind of Soldier who would fuck his buddy right in the ass without so much as a reach-around and I’ll leave it up to you to figure which one is worse.

But by the time we figured out we’d been ass-raped by Colin Powell, we were shoulder deep in Iraq, Baghdad was burning, Iraq’s army had thrown down their weapons and taken off their uniforms and had melted into the population, Saddam had vanished and his sons were dead, and the President of the United States had already declared victory from the deck of an American aircraft carrier.

And so, the objective became … what?

Hearts and minds and freedom and democracy and nation building and magic bunnies who fart sunshine and rainbows.

Unfortunately, it turns out we’re real good at the blowing shit up part, not so good at the magic bunnies part.

Which in retrospect, shouldn’t be all that surprising – given that in order to build a civilization it helps if you actually have some vague familiarity with the people involved.  Needless to say, we didn’t. And we didn’t care. To America, they were all little brown towelheads, sand niggers, raggedy-assed camel jockeys who ought to be grateful to America for burning down their shitty country.  Sunni? Shia? Turkman? Baathists? What’s that? What do you mean they hate each other? They’re all Muslims aren’t they? They’re all Aayrabs, right? What do you mean they hate each other? And it all fell apart, disintegrating into insurgency and murder and bloody civil war – just exactly as anybody who actually knew something about the region and its people and its history could have told you it would.  We lost less than a hundred soldiers in the actual war, the “peace” cost us nearly 5000 more.  And the Iraqis? Who the hell knows? A hundred thousand? A million? It’s impossible to tell.

And it turns out that freedom and democracy and magic flying bunnies were as elusive as Iraq’s supposed WMDs.

So, what was it again that we were fighting for?

They had no idea what we were fighting for, those saber-rattling Chicken Hawks, the cowardly connected wealthy weasels who’d managed to avoid serving in their own war, who kept theirchildren out of uniform, but just couldn’t wait to send us into one of their own making. They sent us off with parades and marching bands and cheering crowds … and brought the bodies home in secret, hidden away from the TV cameras and the public.

They had no plan and no idea what we were dying for, but they assured us what the war wasn’t about – it wasn’t about religion.

Oh no, sir, we weren’t fighting to eradicate Muslims, it wasn’t about Islam.

The Evangelical Christian religious extremists who started this war told us it wasn’t about religion.

Heh heh, riiiiiight. And Vietnam was really about containing communism. Sure.

Maybe they should have had Colin Powell tell that wopper to the UN, but he’d quit by then and was suddenly as invisible to America as those flag draped metal boxes arriving at Dover Air Force base in the middle of the night.

Americans who a few years before had been proudly waving their little flags as Johnny marched off to war were suddenly all shifty-eyed, they slapped a $5 dollar made in China magnet on the bumper of their giant gas-sucking SUVs, Support Our Troops, and with sardonically raised eyebrows complained to each other over the pumps about the immorality of a war fought for oil.

But that wasn’t true either, was it?

Iraq’s oil fields, the ones we fought and died to preserve on orders from the White House, the off-shore terminals the SEALs and the GROM risked their lives to save on that night back in 2003, the precious Iraqi oil that was going to pay for the war and pay to rebuild the country we’d blown up, well, that oil is nowhere to be found today, is it?

So, tell me again, what exactly is it that’s on the “cusp of vanishing?”

I mean it sure isn’t peace.

It’s not freedom for the Iraqi people, despite the war’s idiotic name.

It sure isn’t regional stability.

It’s not the end of terrorism or the near universal hatred of America in the Middle East.

And now that Halliburton and KBR and Blackwater and Dick Cheney have made their billions and cashed out, it isn’t even about long-term economic investments and American business.

Hell, it’s not even about cheap gas.

So, go on, enlighten me. Because even though I was there, I’ve got no goddamned idea what it is that we’ve lost in Iraq beyond the 4,487 men and women we shipped home in metal boxes, beyond the 32,223 wounded and maimed, beyond the trillions of dollars we spent in our rage and our drive for revenge and our lust for blood.

Today, John McCain and Mitt Romney and the rest of the conservative war machine are railing against the President.

McCain stirred from the yellow fog of his bamboo cage and proclaimed in his best Old Man Yelling At Clouds voice, “We won Iraq! Obama lost it!”

Really Johnny Walnuts? Tell me, what did we win? And what have we lost? Please be specific, because I’d really like to know.

We no more “won” Iraq than McCain’s own father “won” Vietnam.

McCain claims he “predicted” the sectarian violence now tearing Iraq apart. Really? Where the hell was clairvoyant John McCain back in 2003 when he voted along with the rest of them to send us into war? And later, where was his great predictive ability when Iraq began tearing itself apart? I guess he was at a Dixie Chicks concert, he must have been out in the lobby ordering a plate of Freedom Fries when his pal George W. Bush let Iraq disintegrate into civil war.

And so here we are.

The same old motley cast of characters, the warhawks and the chickenhawks and the billionaires and the simple-minded saber-rattlers and the same old hate-filled pundits, they just can’t wait to jump back into Iraq.

Mitt Romney, John McCain, one who never served and one who damned well ought to know better, men who both wanted to be President of the United States and who both lost to Barack Obama, they just can’t wait to send other people’s kids back into the meat grinder.

Here’s my question.

Why?

Why, John McCain?

Why, Mitt Romney?

Why, conservatives?

This time you fuckers goddamned well tell me why.

What’s the goal? What’s the objective? Is it to end terrorism? Is it to enforce peace at the muzzle of a gun? Is it it to make defense contractors rich? Is it for jobs? Or is it for magic flying bunnies who shoot rainbows and cheap gasoline out of their little assholes to the sound of Yankee Doodle Dandy?

Or, or, is it just because you hate Barack Obama?

That’s it, isn’t it?

It is.

You sons of bitches one and all, you simpering capering madmen, this time at least have the courage to face the cameras, to look into America’s eyes, and tell them that their sons and daughters will be dying because you John McCain, because you Mitt Romney, because you Dick Cheney, because you Donald Rumsfeld, because you George W. Bush you lying bastard, because you conservatives hate Barack Obama…and for no other reason.

Go on, tell us, go on. Wave your little flags and beat your fleshy chests, roll out the marching bands and tell us just how many more American soldiers should die. Go on, put a number on it. Ten? A hundred? Fifty four thousand? How many of us have to die? How many more bodies will it take to satiate your mindless hunger for blood and revenge? How many more American lives are worth your insane hatred of the president? How many? How much further into debt should we drive our nation, another trillion dollars? Two? Ten? A hundred? Put a price on it you insane sons of bitches, go on, give me a number, write me a check. Tell me how much you’re willing to pay, show me the goddamned money. How many more years? How many? One? Five? Another decade? Fifty? What is it? Don’t wave your hands and make some vague prognostication, give me a number, how many lives, how much money, how many years? You look us in the eye and you fucking tell us.

I’ll tell you what, let’s go back to Iraq.

Oh, yes, let us do that.

I’ll dig out my uniform and strap on my pistol and gird up my sword and ride into battle yet again.

Just so long as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, and every single one of those powdered, Botoxed talking heads at Fox News are in the vanguard. That’s right, you cowards, you put on a uniform and you lead the charge this time around. The Koch brothers and Mitt Romney can pay for it, every goddamned penny, we’ll bleed them until they’re dry and then we’ll pull the gold fillings from their teeth to pay for it right along with the rest of their Wall Street cronies. You fuckers got rich off the last one, you can damned well pay for this one. And when you run out of money, we’ll take your blood, fair’s fair.

Strap John McCain into the cockpit of an A-4 Skyhawk and let him fly air cover.

If he gets himself shot down and taken prisoner again, well, you know what? Fuck him, leave him to the enemy because frankly his hate and bile and raging insanity have done more damage to this country than Bowe Bergdahl ever did.

The terrorists can keep him.

 

Peace love and understanding tell me Is there no place for them today They say we must fight to keep our freedom But Lord knows there’s got to be a better way

War what is it good for Absolutely nothing… – Edwin Starr, “War” 1969

 

2014-06-04 Government orders federal departments to keep tabs on all demonstrations across country

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys  2 Responses »
Jun 062014
 

My thank-you note to journalist David Pugliese follows the posting.

Related posting:    2013-10-09 Inside Canada’s top-secret billion-dollar spy palace, CBC News)

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Government orders federal departments to keep tabs on all demonstrations across country

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/government-orders-federal-departments-to-keep-tabs-on-all-demonstrations-across-country

by David Pugliese

June 4, 2014

The federal government is expanding its surveillance of public activities to include all known demonstrations across the country, a move that collects information even on the most mundane of protests by Canadians.

The email requesting such information was sent out Tuesday by the Government Operations Centre in Ottawa to all federal departments.

“The Government Operations Centre is seeking your assistance in compiling a comprehensive listing of all known demonstrations which will occur either in your geographical area or that may touch on your mandate,” noted the email, leaked to the Citizen. “We will compile this information and make this information available to our partners unless of course, this information is not to be shared and not available on open sources. In the case of the latter, this information will only be used by the GOC for our Situational Awareness.”

The Government Operations Centre or GOC is supposed to provide strategic-level coordination on behalf of the federal government “in response to an emerging or occurring event affecting the national interest.”

It assesses the requirement for developing plans to prevent or deal with emergencies such as pandemics, earthquakes, forest fires and floods. It also monitors overseas situations such as the 2011 crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.

But the Government Operations Centre has also been involved, as an intelligence clearing house, in compiling information on Aboriginal protesters. Tuesday’s email, however, significantly expands its surveillance activities to include all demonstrations by any person or group.

Wesley Wark, an intelligence specialist at the University of Ottawa, said such an order is illegal. “The very nature of the blanket request and its unlimited scope I think puts it way over the line in terms of lawful activity,” said Wark. “I think it’s a clear breach of our Charter rights.”

Wark said the only lawful way a Canadian government agency, with the appropriate mandate, would have to monitor a demonstration would be if that agency could establish that the protest would constitute some kind of threat to civil order.

“But it has to be specific and it has to be justifiable in law to mount such surveillance,” he added.

Wark also questioned why the Government Operations Centre would issue such an order. It is mandated to assess incoming information about emergencies and threats to the security of Canada but it doesn’t have a legal mandate to issue directions, he added.

Jean Paul Duval, a spokesman for Public Safety Canada, noted in an email that “such requests for information fall within the mandate of the Government Operations Centre which facilitates information-sharing for potential and ongoing events with other federal departments, provinces and territories, and its partners through regular analysis and reporting.”

Liberal MP Wayne Easter, the party’s public safety critic, said the order appears to be a continuation of the Conservative government’s efforts to keep track of Canadians who might disagree with government policy.

“Demonstrations, as long as they are peaceful, are part of a healthy democracy,” Easter said. “This is the kind of tactics you would see in a dictatorship.”

The GOC was created in 2004 by Public Safety Canada. It is connected with the operations centres of 20 federal departments and agencies, as well as with those of the provinces and territories, and other countries, including the United States.

NDP MP Paul Dewar said the email is part of what he sees as a disturbing pattern on the part of government to increase its collection of information on the public. “This government is turning into Big Brother,” said Dewar. “This is clearly out of bounds from what GOC is supposed to do.”

Last year the Government Operations Centre was involved in coordinating a response to Aboriginal demonstrations against fracking. The GOC distributed a map of the area where the RCMP had conducted raids on protesters who had seized an oil company’s vehicles. It also produced a spreadsheet detailing 32 planned events in support of anti-fracking.

Those included a healing dance in Kenora, Ont., a prayer ceremony in Edmonton and an Idle No More “taco fundraiser, raffle and jam session” planned at the Native Friendship Centre in Barrie, Ont., according to documents obtained through the Access to Information Act by APTN National News.

= = = = = = = = = = =

From: Sandra Finley [

Sent: June-06-14 6:57 PM

To: David Pugliese

Subject: Thank-you

 

Hello David,

 

Sometimes I read an important article and then look to see who wrote it.  More than once, and most recently today, your name appears.  I murmur  Bless David Pugliese.

I want to express gratitude on behalf of myself and many other Canadians.

Your June 4th report,

  • Government orders federal departments to keep tabs on all demonstrations across country,

coupled with

  • the Oct CBC report:   Inside Canada’s Secret Billion Dollar Spy Palace

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-canada-s-top-secret-billion-dollar-spy-palace-1.1930322?cmp=rss/

makes me very nervous.

 

I also find worrisome:

The build-up of personal files on individual Canadians at StatsCan is relentless, through “surveys”.   I know because people who are threatened with prosecution if they don’t supply the information, often google and end up on my blog.  There isn’t a day that goes by without hits on the related pages.   I have never stopped receiving input from aggrieved Canadians, and replying to questions, offering information and advice.

I recall one of the complainants supplying a written communication from StatsCan that described how the workers work Saturdays, Sundays, all days and hours of the week.

Coercion, intimidation, bullying of people to supply the information – – in a situation where, I am of the considered opinion, the wording of the Statistics Act is sufficiently clear:  the surveys are voluntary.   But not according to StatsCan.  What they are doing is illegal and offensive, an attack on our Charter Rights, as far as I am concerned.

Eve Stegenga from Powell River is back in Court on July 17th over the Lockheed Martin issue at StatsCan.   Every case helps to raise more awareness in another community.

I  THINK that more and more Canadians are aware that we are in trouble and mobilizing.  But my sample is biased, I tend to be attracted to people who are activist, informed.

Anyhow,  keep fighting the good fight!

And thank-you.

 

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

 

 

 

2014-06-04 University: “Arbitrator rules against tenure veto power”

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Take back the University  No Responses »
Jun 042014
 

D’Arcy writes:

Hi folks,

This news story in this morning’s StarPhoenix should raise concerns on many levels:

“Arbitrator rules against tenure veto power” by Jason Warwick

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/saskatoon/Arbitrator+rules+against+tenure+veto+power/9905370/story.html  (INSERT:  The text is copied below in case the link becomes inactive.)

The recommendation to veto the granting of tenure to a U of S professor was made by former president Peter MacKinnon to the Board of Governors at the end of 2011.  The decision to grant the President veto power over tenure was made by the Board at a closed-door meeting (they ALL are) in 2012.  Then in March 2014, a ruling on the matter by an outside arbitrator was received by the Board – before the Buckingham fiasco even broke (we think).  Now Board chair Susan Milburn said the Board will need a couple of months to decide whether or not to appeal the ruling.  She says they need to consult with the University stakeholders (it will be interesting to see who they believe those to be!).

D’Arcy Hande

Saskatoon

CANADA

Mahatma Ghandi once wrote that there are seven sins in the world: wealth without work; pleasure without conscience; knowledge without character; commerce without morality; science without humanity; worship without sacrifice; and politics without principle.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

TEXT OF ARTICLE:

Arbitrator rules against tenure veto power

University considering appeal

By Jason Warick, The Starphoenix June 4, 2014 1:01 PM

Arbitrator rules against tenure veto power

Susan Milburn, chair of the University of Saskatchewan board of governors

Photograph by: Greg Pender, The Starphoenix

 

An arbitrator chastised the University of Saskatchewan for allowing its president to veto tenure appointments after a sociology professor’s nomination was rejected.

It was wrong for the president to act as “gatekeeper” in the case of sociology professor Despina Iliopoulou and overrule the unanimous decision of the tenure committee, stated the March 23 decision by arbitrator Andrew Sims.

This violation of academic freedom is harming the university’s reputation and must be fixed immediately, says University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association (USFA) senior professional development officer Jim Cheesman.

The case could set a precedent for the way Canadian universities operate, he said.

“Tenure is an essential pillar of a university. This is absolutely critical.”

Board of governors chair Susan Milburn said the university will need a couple of months to decide on a possible appeal. In the meantime, the veto power will remain.

“We need to hear from our stakeholders,” Milburn said.

Cheesman and Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) executive director Jim Turk said the university’s reputation is being damaged more with each passing week as it disputes the decision.

“This is very harmful to academic freedom. The decision should be respected,” Cheesman said.

The U of S was enveloped in controversy after the head of its School of Public Health, Robert Buckingham, was fired and escorted off campus for speaking out against various reforms. The events led to the ouster of provost Brett Fairbairn and president Ilene Busch-Vishniac.

Other staff and faculty also said Buckingham himself terminated those who spoke out.

Amid these controversies, the USFA expressed alarm that the U of S board of governors may have granted the president veto power over tenure during a closed 2012 meeting.

Advanced Education Minister Rob Norris expressed concern about the veto issue and said his ministry is investigating.

“Is it of concern? The answer is yes, it is. We’re doing our own internal review at the ministry and certainly this will be part of an ongoing dialogue with the board,” Norris told reporters last month.

Cheesman said the tenure decisions of collegial bodies should not be “intercepted” by the president or other administrators. The USFA took on the case on behalf of Iliopoulou, who is no longer working at the U of S. She declined to comment when reached Sunday.

Turk said professors from across Canada are watching events at the U of S closely.

“You have a heavy-handed administration at the U of S. It’s disappointing the administration and board don’t respect the process,” Turk said.

Turk called on Milburn and interim U of S president Gordon Barnhart to act decisively and restore the university’s reputation. According to Sims’ decision, the U of S renewals and tenure appeal committee unanimously recommended Iliopoulou for tenure, meaning she would be made a permanent professor.

Then-president Peter MacKinnon made a presentation to the board arguing that the president could veto tenure appointments made by the collegial body. The board agreed and rejected Iliopoulou. Her salary and benefits were terminated Dec. 9, 2011.

Sims said both MacKinnon and the board were incorrect.

 

2014-06-03 My letter to President of the U: Leadership at the University serves WHO?

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials), Take back the University  1 Response »
Jun 032014
 

(This is also about Lockheed Martin Corp, only because it is a useful example.)

“The community” is doing an excellent job of educating citizens to what is going on, through letters-to-editors.   Keep them rollin’ in!

Gordon Barnhart is the Acting President of the University of Saskatchewan, in the wake of the firing of Ilene Busch-Vishniac.

My email below to Barnhart is hard-hitting perhaps.  I think this is NOT the time to use velvet gloves.

= = = =

From: Sandra Finley

Sent: June-03-14 10:55 AM

To: Gordon Barnhart

Cc: ‘Leonhardt, Lesley’

Subject: RE: U of S Appoints Interim Provost

 

Dear Interim President Barnhart,

 

Thank-you for the information regarding the interim appointment of Ernie Barber to the Provost’s position.

 

The imbroglio at the U of S today arises out of a line of failed leadership, people who do not recognize the limits to their “power”.  They did not know when to say “no, this is going too far beyond the limits of democracy”.   (Leadership cannot just go along to get along. Leadership must meet the moral challenge of the day, as was said by Jesse Jackson.)

 

I wish to be upfront.  Silence does not serve well.

 

Fortunately, the appointment of Ernie Barber is only interim.  Else, there will be continuing problems because the root goes unaddressed:  appointments are going to people who do not understand leadership.

 

I have known Ernie Barber and have nothing personal against him.   He is a “nice” man.  He knows how to say “yes”, how to obey;  perfect for falling in line with the “U15” (15 universities in Canada that are on a corporate agenda).

 

That is not what is needed.   The University of Saskatchewan has been built by the people of the Province.  It belongs to, and is for the purpose of serving THEIR needs.  The University must have strong leadership that knows its masters.  Leadership SERVES – – yes.  But “who” is critical.

 

I have appended a specific and egregious example of Ernie’s ability to contort reality to serve the wrong (corporate) masters.  It is documented in the Minutes of University Senate.  I wrote about it in the fall last year, in a different but related context.

 

I hope it will serve to remind everyone of the need to find true leaders.

 

All the best to you, in your position of Interim President.

 

Sandra Finley

Elected Member-at-Large

U of S Senate

 

APPENDED:

  • Lockheed Martin Corporation is worming its way into our “educational” institutions.
  • The “intellectuals” become part of the enabling machinery. Look at Acting Dean of Engineering, Ernie Barber, at the University of Saskatchewan who defended Lockheed Martin’s role at successive meetings of University Senate – – he said their involvement is in “renewable technologies“.

Lockheed Martin’s own document for University collaboration reveals the lie.   See Lockheed Martin at U of S. “Collaboration Topics”.

Six months later at the next meeting of University Senate, Barber repeated that LM’s role is in “renewable technologies“.   Give me a break.

It is a very misleading statement. The war industry DOES have an interest in “renewable energy” – – when they invade and destroy your country it would be convenient if they didn’t have to find a source for ALL the fossil fuels they require.  But, even with that said, it is NOT what Lockheed Martin’s “Collaboration Topics” at the University are about.   Does Ernie think that others are inept, do not know, do not read, cannot think? 

Universities are to be married to the search for truth, not part of the spin-doctoring that serves corporate masters.

The betrayal by the “intellectuals” in Nazi Germany is well-documented.  Ernie Barber is only one in a long line.

  • There is Harper’s dismantling of democracy.
  • How about the rise and seeming acceptance of propaganda to replace informed public discussion?
  • Look at Lockheed Martin – – they and the other killers (fanatics, to use the words of the email about Muslims) EXPORT the weapons they manufacture to the terrorists ($$$). They have been convicted over and over again for breaking the “arms export control ” laws. They are ARMING the other fanatics.  Again, a repeat of World War Two.
  • The war industries bankrupt the nation. Look at the wildly escalated debt in the U.S. – – it is currently more than $17 trillion – – a terribly de-stabilizing force in any nation. . . . What does a nation need to combat civilian unrest?

The road we are on is clear enough.

BUT HERE IS THE THING  that becomes evident through A German’s view on Islam:

By looking OUTSIDE, and assigning blame (creating enemies, The Muslim Fanatics), we unwittingly BECOME the ‘silent majority’ in our own country, who SHOULD have spoken up about our own situation, but didn’t.

If people were not so busy shaking the stick and bombs at “others”, they might be able to see what is happening right here.

If democracy falls, it will be because of the blindness caused by ego. Ego wants “us” (our country, our University) to be seen as “good” . (It also diverts us to other “ego identifications” – – possessions, social status, physical appearance, family history – – with our gaze focused in the wrong direction we don’t see the invaders coming.)

We can’t even see the Corporate Force when it turns and is now directed at the soul of our own country.

So (the appended email): it is not so much a ‘silent majority’, as a majority who are blinded to what is happening in their own country, through the role of ego with its nationalistic, racial, religious, . . . identifications.

/Sandra

 

 

From: Leonhardt, Lesley Sent: June-03-14 8:13 AM To: University Senate

Subject: U of S Appoints Interim Provost

 

Good morning Senate members,

 

Please see the following message announcing Dr. Ernie Barber as interim provost.

 

Thank you.

 

Lesley

 

From: Office of the President Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 2:10 PM Subject: U of S Appoints Interim Provost

 

To the University of Saskatchewan community,

After consultation with the board and senior leaders, I am pleased to announce that Dr. Ernie Barber has agreed to act as the university’s interim provost effective July 1, 2014.

Not only does Dr. Barber have experience in the provost’s office, as a dean and as a senior leader on campus, it was evidenced from my discussions and own experiences that he is well respected and held in high regard by many.  I also believe that Dr. Barber’s skills and leadership style will be a good complement to my own and I look forward to working closely with him.

Dr. Barber will hold the position of interim provost until a permanent candidate is in place.  To assist in transition from his leadership position in the Global Institute for Food Security, Dr. Barber will not be taking up the post of interim provost until July 1, 2014.  During the month of June I have reassigned urgent matters usually handled by the provost to other individuals as needed. Please contact the Provost’s Office should you have questions on specific matters.

We will be sharing this news with the external community this afternoon. Please see the attached news release.

Sincerely,

 

Gordon Barnhart,

Interim President and Vice-Chancellor

Attachments:    Media Release Announcing Interim Provost June2014.pdf

For more information, contact (306) 966-6612.

Sent to students, staff and faculty by the Office of the President.

2014-05-14 U of S fires Dean Robert Buckingham after he spoke out on TransformUs

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Take back the University  1 Response »
May 142014
 

UPDATEDMay 14, 2014 10:10 AM CT

CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2642637

The head of the University of Saskatchewan’s School of Public Health was fired this morning after he spoke out against the school’s TransformUs restructuring plan.
The university confirmed that it fired professor Robert Buckingham, but would not comment further.

When Buckingham showed up to work this morning, he said he was met by two police officers. He said they handed him a note, which talked about a letter he released yesterday called ‘The Silence of the Deans.’

Buckingham said the university claimed he breached his contract through the letter, and irrevocably damaged his relationship with the university.

He was escorted off campus by the pair of officers. He was told to stay off university property, but will be allowed to return at a later date to collect his personal belongings.

He said his tenure and benefits have been revoked.and cannot comment further until he obtains a lawyer.

Sask. opposition weighs in

Saskatchewan opposition leader Cam Broten said that Premier Brad Wall should be calling university president Illene Busch-Vishniac in for a meeting. He said the provincial government did not hesitate to get involved at First Nations University of Canada and the University of Regina in 2005.

The leader of the Saskatchewan NDP said this is “not some university in Arizona run out of someone’s basement” but a real, reputable university whose reputation will be hurt by this.

‘The Silence of the Deans’

In a public letter Buckingham titled “The Silence of the Deans”, he detailed a December 2013 meeting between senior academic leaders at the school. He said Deans and Vice-Presidents were in attendance. Buckingham claims that president Busch-Vishniac told the group not to “publicly disagree with the process or findings of TransformUs”. Buckingham alleges President Busch-Vishniac went on to tell the group that if they did speak out against the cost-cutting process their “tenure would be short”.

“I felt, at that time, [the] deans were being threatened,” Buckingham told CBC News on Tuesday afternoon, a few hours after his letter was raised by the NDP in Question Period at the Legislature. “If we did share publicly, [President Busch-Vishniac] stated that our tenure would be short. I thought that was a threat. What I am concerned about here is freedom of speech at a university,” Buckingham said.

Warned again

Buckingham, who became Dean of the School of Public Health at the U of S in 2009, said it was always his intention to come to the school, improve the school and leave his post at the university after five years. Because of this, he contends university administration, including Provost Brett Fairbairn were vigilant in reminding him that speaking out against TransformUs, publicly, was not condoned; especially as the university prepared to make the details of the TransformUs plan public in May 2014.

Buckingham points to an email sent by Provost Fairbairn on April 29, 2014, addressed to him and Dr. Ken Sutherland the Associate Dean and Professor of Fixed Prosthodontics at the U of S, as evidence that academic leaders were muzzled.

An excerpt from the email reads; “you are in an especially tough position and are subject to the expectation the president has of all of its leaders, that you will support TransformUs and the university’s messaging.”

University issues statement

Following the circulation of Buckingham’s letter on Tuesday, CBC News requested an interview with either President Busch-Vishniac or Provost Fairbairn. CBC News was advised no formal interview would ever be granted on the matter, however the university’s communications department forwarded the following statement and said it was attributable to the Provost:

“The University of Saskatchewan has high expectations of its senior leaders to support the university’s directions and to lead their implementation. Top among current priorities are the university’s TransformUS initiatives. Leaders have opportunities to express personal opinions in leadership discussions. Once decisions are made, all leaders are expected to support the university’s directions,” read the statement.

However, Buckingham hopes his decision to publicly speak out against TransformUs will encourage others in similar positions to do the same.

“I certainly felt stifled and muzzled,” Buckingham said “I think there are probably other Deans at this university who are feeling muzzled also, afraid to speak out.”

2014-05-10 (Lockheed Martin) Internal survey blasts feds for missing database: long-form census

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys  No Responses »
May 122014
 

 

The next census is in 2016.   There are renewed calls for a mandatory long-form census.

So frustrating!  The articles and comments mention nothing about Lockheed Martin’s role.

 

I “commented” on two news articles (links follow),  using basically this:

= = = = = =

 

TO:   Auditor General Michael Ferguson

 

Dear Michael Ferguson,

 

Reported May 10, CTV:

 

“As a result of data not being released due to quality concerns, potential users of this data for approximately 25 per cent of geographic areas do not have reliable National Household Survey data available for their use,” said Michael Ferguson’s report.

Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/internal-survey-blasts-feds-for-missing-database-long-form-census-1.1815886#ixzz31YOKXg5O

 

I only wish to bring to your attention very important information about the data collected by StatsCan, seldom mentioned in the news coverage:

RE: “data missing because of the demise of the mandatory long-form census”

Thousands of citizens do not comply with StatsCan surveys and censuses because of the out-sourcing of work to Lockheed Martin Corp.    Lockheed Martin is a very large player in the American war machine. ONE of their specialties is surveillance.

Because of the Patriot Act, data bases to which Lockheed Martin has access can be turned over to the NSA and other American “defence” agencies.

Surely, the leaks by Edward Snowden leave no doubt about the security and privacy of information on citizens at StatsCan. (And note that your record in the data base has your name on it; the records are not “anonymous”.)

If the Snowden leaks fail to convince you, check the news 2014-05-08 Chantal Bernier says Ottawa snooping on social media  (Privacy Commissioner’s) report:

  • the Government, without warrants, through the Telecoms, is accessing our telephone and email conversations.

If you still have doubts, try the Oct 2013 news  2013-10-09  Inside Canada’s top-secret billion-dollar spy palace, CBC News

Do you know of a single police state that does not, or did not, use detailed files on citizens?   And to what use the data is put?

 

We have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information for very solid and compelling reasons.

 

Anyone who espouses a mandatory long form census, especially given the above developments has to be out of their mind, as I see it  (these developments are only the last items on a well-established trend line that goes back to 2003 when the first census contracts were awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation)

 

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

THE TWO NEWS REPORTS 

1.    Internal survey blasts feds for missing database: long-form census

Dean Beeby, The Canadian Press
Published Saturday, May 10, 2014

Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/internal-survey-blasts-feds-for-missing-database-long-form-census-1.1815886#ixzz31YIFkmnm

 

2.   Despite bad reviews, Tories sticking with voluntary census for 2016

The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/despite-bad-reviews-tories-sticking-with-voluntary-census-for-2016-1.1777421#ixzz31YHa8IPY

 

2014-02-17 How Privatization Perverts Education, Nation of Change

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Take back the University  No Responses »
May 122014
 

http://www.nationofchange.org/how-privatization-perverts-education-1392652405

By Paul Buchheit

Profit-seeking in the banking and health care industries has victimized Americans. Now it’s beginning to happen in education, with our children as the products.

There are good reasons—powerful reasons—to stop the privatization efforts before the winner-take-all free market creates a new vehicle for inequality. At the very least, we need the good sense to slow it down while we examine the evidence about charters and vouchers.

1. Charter Schools Have Not Improved Education

The recently updated CREDO study at Stanford revealed that while charters have made progress since 2009, their performance is about the same as that of public schools. The differences are, in the words of the National Education Policy Center, “so small as to be regarded, without hyperbole, as trivial.” Furthermore, the four-year improvement demonstrated by charters may have been due to the closing of schools that underperformed in the earlier study, and also by a variety of means to discourage the attendance of lower-performing students.

Ample evidence exists beyond CREDO to question the effectiveness of charter schools (although they continue to have both supporters and detractors). In Ohio, charters were deemed inferior to traditional schools in all grade/subject combinations. Texas charters had a much lower graduation rate in 2012 than traditional schools. In Louisiana, where Governor Bobby Jindal proudly announced that “we’re doing something about [failing schools],” about two-thirds of charters received a D or an F from the Louisiana State Department of Education in 2013. Furthermore, charters in New Orleans rely heavily on inexperienced teachers and even its model charter school Sci Academy has experienced a skyrocketing suspension rate, which is the second highest in the city. More trouble looms for the over-chartered city in a lawsuit filed by families of disabled students contending that equal educational access has not been provided for their children.

2. The Profit Motive Perverts the Goals of Education

Forbes notes: “The charter school movement began as a grassroots attempt to improve public education. It’s quickly becoming a backdoor for corporate profit.” A McKinsey report estimates that education can be a $1.1 trillion business in the U.S. Meanwhile, state educational funding continues to be cut and budget imbalances are worsened by the transfer of public tax money to charter schools.

Education funding continues to be cut largely because corporations aren’t paying their state taxes.

So philanthropists like Bill Gates and Eli Broad and Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Bezos and the Walton family, who have little educational experience among them and, who have little accountability to the public, are riding the free-market wave and promoting “education reform” with lots of standardized testing.

Just Like the Fast-Food Industry: Profits for CEOs, Low Wages for the Servers

Our nation’s impulsive experiment with privatization is causing our schools to look more like boardrooms than classrooms. Charter administrators make a lot more money than their public school counterparts and their numbers are rapidly increasing. Teachers, on the other hand, are paid less and they have fewer years of experience and a higher turnover rate. The patriotic-sounding “Teach for America” charges public school districts $3,000 to $5,000 per instructor per year. Teachers don’t get that money, the business owners do.

Good Business Strategy: Cut Employees, Use Machines to Teach

Article image

 

The profit motive also leads to shortcuts in the educational methods practiced on our children. Like “virtual” instruction. The video-game-named Rocketship Schools have $15/hour instructors monitoring up to 130 kids at a time as they work on computers. In Wisconsin, half the students in virtual settings are attending schools that are not meeting performance expectations. Only one out of twelve “cyber schools” met state standards in Pennsylvania. In Los Angeles public money goes for computers instead of needed infrastructure repair.

K12 Inc., the largest online, for-profit Educational Management Organization in the U.S., is a good example of what the Center for Media and Democracy calls “America’s Highest Paid Government Workers” — that is, the CEOs of corporations that make billions by taking control of public services. While over 86 percent of K12’s profits came from taxpayers, and while the salaries of K12’s eight executives went from $10 million to over $21 million in one year, only 27.7 percent of K12 Inc. online schools met state standards in 2010-2011, compared to 52 percent of public schools.

It gets worse with the Common Core Standards, an unproven Gates-funded initiative that requires computers many schools don’t have. The Silicon Valley Business Journal reports that “Next year, K-12 schools across the United States will begin implementing Common Core State Standards, an education initiative that will drive schools to adopt technology in the classroom as never before…Apple, Google, Cisco and a swarm of startups are elbowing in to secure market share.” States are being hit with unexpected new costs, partly for curriculum changes, but also for technology upgrades, testing, and assessment.

Banker’s Ethics in the Principal’s Office

Finally, the profit motive leads to questionable ethics among school operators, if not outright fraud. After a Los Angeles charter school manager misused funds, the California Charter Schools Association insisted that charter schools be exempt from criminal laws because they are private. The same argument was used in a Chicago case. Charters employ the privatization defense to justify their generous salaries while demanding instructional space as public entities. States around the country are being attracted to the money, as, for example, in Texas and Ohio, where charter-affiliated campaign contributions have led to increased funding and licenses for charter schools.

3. Advanced Profit-Making: Higher Education

At the college level, for-profit schools eagerly clamor for low-income students and military veterans, who conveniently arrive with public money in the form of federal financial aid. For-profit colleges get up to 90 percent of their revenue from U.S. taxpayers. Less incentive remains for these schools after tuition is received, as evidenced by the fact that more than half of the students enrolled in for-profit colleges in 2008-9 left without a degree or diploma.

As with K-12 education, the driving need for profit directs our students to computer screens rather than to skilled human communicators. A Columbia University study found that “failure and withdrawal rates were significantly higher for online courses than for face-to-face courses.” The University of Phoenix has a 60 percent dropout rate.

The newest money-maker is the MOOC (Massively Open Online Course). Thanks to such sweeping high-tech strategies, higher ed is increasingly becoming a network of diploma processors, with up to a 90 percent dropout rate, and with the largest business operations losing the most students. For a 2012 bioelectricity class at Duke, for example, 12,725 students enrolled, 3,658 attempted a quiz, and 313 passed. Yet “schools” like edX are charging universities $250,000 per course, then $50,000 for each re-offering of the course, along with a cut of any revenue generated by the course.

4. Lower-Performing Children Left Behind

The greatest perversion of educational principles is the threat to equal opportunity, a mandate that was eloquently expressed by Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1954 Supreme Court decision on Brown vs. the Board of Education: “Education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments…Such an opportunity…is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” But we’re turning away from that important message. The National Education Policy Center notes that “Charter schools…can shape their student enrollment in surprising ways,” through practices that often exclude “students with special needs, those with low test scores, English learners, or students in poverty.”

The Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), perhaps the most acclaimed charter organization, says it doesn’t do that. KIPP has its supporters and it proudly displays the results of an independent study by Mathematica Policy Research, which concluded that “The average impact of KIPP on student achievement is positive, statistically significant, and educationally substantial.”

But funding for the Mathematica study was provided by Atlantic Philanthropies, the same organization that provided $10-25 million in funding to KIPP.

According to a 2011 study by Western Michigan University, KIPP schools enrolled a lower percentage of students with disabilities (5.9 percent) than their local school districts (12.1 percent), enrolled a lower percentage of students classified as English Language Learners (11.5 percent) than their local school districts (19.2 percent), and experienced substantially higher levels of attrition than their local school districts. For charters in general, the CREDO study found that fewer special education students and fewer English language learners are served than in traditional public schools. And charter schools serve fewer disabled students. According to a Center on Education Policy report, 98 percent of disabled students are educated in public schools, while only 1 percent are educated in private schools.

In New York City, special-needs students and English-language learners are enrolled at a much lower rate in charter schools than in public schools; and Over the Counter students—those not participating in the choice process—are disproportionately assigned to high schools with higher percentages of low-performing students. Special education students also leave charters at a much higher rate than special education students in traditional New York public schools. In Nashville, low-performing students are leaving KIPP Academy and other charters just in time for their test scores to be transferred to the public schools. And Milwaukee’s voucher program, which has been praised as a model of privatization success, has had up to a 75 percent attrition rate.

Equal Access to Education?

It’s been 60 years since Chief Justice Warren declared education “a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Belief in the American Dream means that anyone can move up the ladder. But today, only 4 percent of those raised in the bottom quintile make it all the way to the top as adults. Two-thirds of those raised in the bottom of the wealth ladder remain on the bottom two rungs.

Compared to other developed countries, equal education has been a low priority in America, with less spending on poor children than rich ones, and with repeated cutbacks in state funding. But there’s no market-based reform where children are involved. Education can’t be reduced to a lottery, or a testing app, or a business plan. Equal opportunity in education ensures that every child is encouraged and challenged and nurtured from the earliest age, as we expect for our own children.

2014-05-09 CONTEXT for the challenges by the Privacy Commissioner to the Federal Government

 Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys  No Responses »
May 092014
 

Chantal Bernier is challenging the Government on

  1. the indiscriminate, no-warrant collection of personal data by the Government from the Telecom companies.      (The Telecoms typically have both your phone and email conversations.)

ALSO

2.  the data the Government is collecting on citizens through facebook

See  Chantal Bernier says Ottawa snooping on social media (2014-05-08):   http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/chantal-bernier-says-ottawa-snooping-on-social-media-1.2635998

(back-up copy at  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=12949.)

 

A break-through like this – Bernier’s efforts to heighten public awareness and hold the Government to account –  last only a minute in today’s news.   We can prolong it.  Spread the word.

There’s an on-line petition, right-hand side at   https://openmedia.ca/defendprivacy  

And very good articles on the issue by Michael Geist, Chris Parsons, etc. at  https://openmedia.ca/

CONTEXT IS CRITICAL, BUT MISSING

The news coverage and commentary on what the Privacy Commissioner is saying fails to include  Context.

I tried every which way to submit a “Comment” on the on-line story.   (There are more than a thousand so far.)   But kept getting a message saying there was a problem.

So I sent the CONTEXT to the panelists in the 7 minute video (at the above CBC link) . . . at least they will have it!  See below.

One panelist, Steve Anderson from OpenMedia.ca, understands better than the other two.   He said “Canadians should be VERY ALARMED” by what the Privacy Commissioner is pointing out.

This is an important time to communicate with your Member-of-Parliament.   If you can copy and paste from the following, please help yourself!

/Sandra

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

“CONTEXT”
AS SENT TO PANELISTS and OTHERS

SENT TO:   list, including email addresses, appended

 

Dear  (- – – ),

 

Thank-you for adding your weight to defend the principles of democracy in Canada.

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/chantal-bernier-says-ottawa-snooping-on-social-media-1.2635998)

Perhaps you know the following.  But JUST IN CASE you don’t!

Add this to the

  • data collection from social media and
  • the “almost 1.2 million requests for personal information about Canadians from Canada’s major telecom companies . . .”,   keeping in mind that the telecoms have both our phone and email data:

1.    CBC News, Oct 2013 –  “Inside Canada’s Top Secret Billion Dollar Spy Palace”.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-canada-s-top-secret-billion-dollar-spy-palace-1.1930322?cmp=rss/

2.   The Guardian, Dec 2013 – “Edward Snowden revelations prompt UN investigation into surveillance”.   (News story set in the UK, but equally applicable to Canada.)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/edward-snowden-un-investigation-surveillance?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

3.   Ottawa Citizen, Nov 2008 – “American officials are pressuring the federal government to supply them with more information on Canadians, says an influential analyst on Canada-U.S. relations.   Not only about (routine) individuals, but also about people that you may be looking at for reasons, but there’s no indictment and there’s no charge,” Christopher Sands of the Hudson Institute told a security intelligence conference in Ottawa  . . .”

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=64f59d78-ce97-48dc-b2fd-381859ce6c84

4.  US Legal, Nov 2009 – NSA to Build $1.6 Billion Storage Facility to House Personal Surveillance Data

http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/11/03/nsa-to-build-2-billion-storage-facility-to-house-personal-surveillance-data/

5.   Hansard, October 9, 2003 –  Government contracts to Lockheed Martin Corp for work related to the data base on Canadians at Statistics Canada.

(Note that the data is being added to continuously, every day, through StatsCan “surveys”.  StatsCan is no longer limited to once-in-five-year data collection on citizens through censuses.  Also, individual records are not “anonymous”.  Your name is on your record.)

“Bill Blaikie pressures government on Lockheed Martin Government Contracts

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

We have heard a troubling rumour that Statistics Canada has awarded a multi-million dollar contract to an American corporation to do the dress rehearsal for the census in 2005 and subsequently the census itself. That corporation, we have heard, is Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest munitions companies in the world.  . . . ”   (Not to mention that it also specializes in surveillance.)

6.   BC Privacy Commissioner, Oct 2004 —  “Access to personal information through the USA Patriot Act”

Excerpt:

“On the first question, we have concluded that, if information is located outside British Columbia, it will be subject to the law that applies where it is found, regardless of the terms of an outsourcing contract. Therefore, if an outsourcing arrangement calls for personal information to be sent to the US, that information would be subject to the USA Patriot Act . . .

Further, we have concluded that it is a reasonable possibility that the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FIS Court) would issue a FISA order requiring a US-located corporation to produce records held in Canada by its Canadian subsidiary or, indeed, require any person or corporation within the jurisdiction of that court to disclose records held outside the US that they control because they have the legal or practical ability to obtain the records.  . . . ”

(The Government and citizens of Canada, owners of the StatsCan data base for example, would never be told if Lockheed Martin turned over access to the data base to the NSA or some other entity within the American Govt.)

7.   Ottawa Citizen, June 2008 –  “. . .  the Conservatives’ Canada First Defence Strategy was quietly released Thursday night on the Internet. . . .”

(Link no longer valid)  http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=c3fcf7c4-0f60-41e1-89f8-0c95a2640229

Text from this Canadian military strategy document (Canada and the U.S.), as it was then:

“.. the two nations’ armed forces will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible. . . . ”

8.  New American, March 2011 –  The U.S. has invested heavily in the development of biometrics

“…The Department of Homeland Security has been using iris scans at some airports to verify the identity of travelers who have passed background checks and who want to move through lines quickly. The department is also looking to apply iris- and face-recognition techniques to other programs. The DHS already has a database of millions of sets of fingerprints, . . .

“It’s going to be an essential component of tracking,” warned Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s enabling the Always On Surveillance Society.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7927-fbi-announces-creation-of-biometric-database

 

If the preceding can be helpful in some way,   I will be happy.

I am conversant with these matters because I run an email network.  And because I was on trial for 5 years, in and out of Court,  over the question of Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the StatsCan data base on citizens.

Surveillance is characteristic of a police state.  The evidence when accumulated is clear:  Canadians are on a precipice.  The time is well past when we all need to fight with every means at our disposal to reverse the slide into a fascist (corporate) state.  Once again – – many thanks for your contribution.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sandra Finley

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

APPENDED

The preceding was sent, with minor variations, to:

1.   Chantal Bernier, Federal Privacy Commissioner  (a special thank-you)

Anne-Marie.Hayden    AT    priv.gc.ca

Dear Anne-Marie,

I will be very appreciative if you will forward this to Chantal Bernier:

Bless you, Chantal Bernier,   . . .

 

2.   The “specialist”  Christopher Parsons.

I’m a postdoctoral fellow at Citizen Lab (U of T, Munk School)  focusing on ubiquitous digital surveillance and its accompanying privacy issues. Toronto, ON.

christopher   AT     christopher-parsons.com

 

3.   Panelist  Bill Robson, President and CEO of the C D Howe Institute   (Strange bed-fellow for me!)

Bill_robson   AT    cdhowe.org

 

4.   Panelist  Goldy Hyder, President, Hill & Knowlton

Hello Jackie,

I will be appreciative if you can forward this to Mr. Hyder.

jackie.king    AT   hkstrategies.ca

 

 

 

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries